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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative Views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.
I don't believe there is any source in this article that links True-believer syndrome and The True Believer. According to the sources given True-believer syndrome is used with paranormal event or phenomenon. There are several sections in this article that use the terms interchangeably without sources that equate the two. I will look for appropriate tags for these sections. Ward20 (talk) 23:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
What it is not, is a disorder. It is human nature to believe whatever they want to believe, only a small minority cares about the truth (Wikipedia explicitly states that it doesn't, for instance). There is no difference in this between paranormal events and any other kind of event. Regards, Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 08:48, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
I think this "true-believer syndrome" is essentially one Keene description on stubborn refusal to acknowledge a statement that Keene regards as obvious truth. If researchers try to explore a phenomenon based on similar experiences, they may actually define a syndrome, but that is pure speculation. It is hasty to conclude that this "true-believer syndrome" equals fanaticism, in order to do that, we must have a more precise description of fanaticism too. The article is kind of notable, by the skin of the teeth, but it contains weak material and the "true-believer syndrome" is pretty much a speculative reflection of some peoples stubborn minds, as it is IMHO.
Besides that: I think that most humans are very concerned about truth ― but mostly just as far as regards their spheres of functional operation: whether the shop is open on Friday and for how long, but not whether Earth is a flat disc residing on a colossal turtle. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 18:37, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
There seems to be problems with this section. The sourced lead states True-believer syndrome refers to persons who continued to believe in a paranormal event or phenomenon even after it had been proven to have been staged. The 419 scam refers specifically not to a paranormal event or phenomenon, and the cited source doesn't mention that a True-believer continues to believe after it had been proven to be a scam. There is simply no source in this article that equates the two, so how can it be stated without WP:SYNTH as an example of True-believer syndrome? Additionally the source for this section is a self published website from an author that wrote a self publishednovel "Brian Wizard's Nigerian 419 scam" about the scam.. Ward20 (talk) 13:29, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
There is indeed a source which shows that at least some victims definitely believe in it long after it has been proven to be a scam (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2001825150_scam290.html Google "rupert sessions" for more examples). The specific quote in this source is "Paul Elliott, a Secret Service agent in Jacksonville, Fla., said it's too painful for some victims to accept they've lost everything to a fairy tale". (Near the bottom of the article) So that is definitely the case. I mentioned on your talk page, the synth tag indicates that the source given did not say that 419-fighters refer to fraud victims as true believers, and it does. Therefore, a better tag is needed.
In regards to paranormal events, whilst the scam iteslf is indeed not supernatural, it can hardly be denied that this bears some very strong simliarities to tbs, and tbs is not a well-defined psychiatric disorder. The effect is undeniably similar. The section may definitely needs a rewording, which I am prepared to do, and better sources but it definitely belongs in this section.126.96.36.199 (talk) 09:15, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, True-believer syndrome is reliably sourced to refer only to persons who continued to believe in a paranormal event or phenomenon even after it had been proven to have been staged. Wouldn't the 419 scam be more appropriate to add to the The True Believer article? I agree TBS has similarities, but the original book described a supernatural model. If Wikipedia can say the 419 scam is an example of TBS it really needs a WP:RS to state that, not editors that believe it is. Maybe an RFC would be good to pull more editors into the discussion? Ward20 (talk) 08:09, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Putting it in the true bleiever is fine by me, and is indeed probably better now that you mention it. Actually, while we're at it, we should put a few other examples in (it would look kind of bizarre as being the only example), as that would be a worthwile addition to that article anyway. I'm fairly certain the effect is applicable to all fraud, not just 419. Let me find a source on that.188.8.131.52 (talk) 08:52, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
A category for these idiosyncratic "illnesses"
As with Orthorexia nervosa this term has been proposed as a diagnose or illness, however it has not been embraced by the mainstream therapeutic community as such. I'm sure there are other, comparable terms for which we have articles, so I'm proposing the creation of a category for these non-approved disease labels. __meco (talk) 08:24, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
I don't know if a category would help, but I think it's important for WP to distinguish genuine syndromes from some effect that has been called a "syndrome" somewhere. I think the present lead does a good job of that. Arguably, this syndrome is only marginally notable. MartinPoulter (talk) 15:33, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
I certainly think a category would be quite useful in this case. That would make it easy to compare such conditions. I just happened to notice these two because they have a very similar caveat in their ledes. __meco (talk) 16:38, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
It's a worthy proposal. The lead-in for Orthorexia nervosa does not make this distinction clear, and the edit history of the article shows a bitter war playing out in Wikipedia's pages over whether this should be presented as a real medical condition or not. These two articles seem similar, at least in that they describe ways of classifying annoying people, rather than actual medical conditions. Grouping them as part of the same family, along with whatever others are lurking out there, would be a benefit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 22:11, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Why is the Infobox Paranormal Term used for this article? There is nothing paranormal about it at all... --OpenFuture (talk) 18:21, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Likely because its original usage was in that connection. The historic roots never change, so the infobox will always be accurate. Now, in addition to its continued usage in that connection, it is also applied to anyone who exhibits such characteristics, IOW refusal to change one's mind in the face of overwhelming evidence that one is wrong. It's a trait seen mostly in "conservative" (which is a mindset found on all sides of the questions) religious and political circles, but also many other situations. An current example would be as a description of the lethal POV held by anti-vaccinationists who refuse to accept that Andrew Wakefield is guilty of an "elaborate fraud". The evidence is overwhelming, but they refuse to adapt their POV, so they qualify for the term. -- Brangifer (talk) 19:27, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Well, I can't find another Infobox to replace it with, so... :-) --OpenFuture (talk) 23:16, 4 February 2011 (UTC)