Talk:Bicameral mentality

Schizophrenia
It is interesting that up until now, there is no solid explanation for the psychiatric diagnosis of schizophrenia, however, the symptoms associated with the idea of what may cause schizophrenia is considered a mental illness. Surely based on the concept of bicameralism which gives an individual living with the effects of this real matter some clarity, that the auditory and command hallucinations is apart of our direct ancient history and this concept of bicameralism merges together time and space and furthermore explains the breakdown of our RNA pathways to our astronomical being. Even Albert Einstein was considered a "mad scientist" but had the power to express his ingenious. <>

Revert?
The version last modified on 19 January 2016, at 19:28 has undergone a sharp decline in concise language and objectivity without adding much in way of substantiality from my quick scan. It feels as if some editors added subjective content that was removed and then the editors who originally added the subjective material came back and tried to make the same arguments in less-seeming be still, ultimately, subjective support. Glad I retained a copy of the 2016 article as I need content that objectively explores the concept. I don't need anyone to 'guide' my opinion as to how 'controversial" Jayne's work is within the explanation of the work. It's obviously based on Jayne's hypothesis and not a scientifically collaborated fact and we're all still wondering what the hell consciousness is and 'where' it is, much less where it came from. Cite those who disagree as well as those who don't and get out of the way. Currently, this reads like a chat room masquerading as an article, or a plagiarized article some kid tried to copy in their own language. To call something 'bicameral mentality'-- like it is a known and useful 'mentality' like 'a scarcity mentality' feels wrong. The 'Bicameral Mind' feels more accurate. <>

Removed section of original research
I have removed the section titled "Epic of Gilgamesh as a counter-example" as none of the sources used to support it even mention Jaynes. Sources must directly criticize Jayne's theories directly mentioning him as being refuted. Wikipedia editors may not combine sources to imply such a criticism. Skyerise (talk) 20:41, 4 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Ensuing debate here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Bicameral_mentality Snarcky1996 (talk) 23:02, 4 February 2024 (UTC)


 * You call that a debate? It simply proves you still have not read the examples at WP:SYNTH. Skyerise (talk) 23:21, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 11 February 2024

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. There's been a lot of dialogue over a few weeks, but I don't see any concrete agreement that a move is desirable here, so we remain with the status quo. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 14:01, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Bicameral mentality → Bicameralism (psychology) – The term 'bicameral mentality' is not common usage. For an article solely about Julian Jayne's theory, 'Bicameral mind' was the term he used. But this article professes a broader scope. Bicameralism is the most applicable term and Bicameralism (psychology) is used elsewhere and would seem to be the most applicable disambiguation. Skyerise (talk) 14:09, 11 February 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. asilvering (talk) 03:49, 8 March 2024 (UTC) — Relisting.  &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 13:07, 17 March 2024 (UTC)


 * This should be moved to bicameral mind for a natural disambiguation, which is preferred over parenthetical.
 * Bensci54 (talk) 15:12, 11 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Except that "Bicameral mind" is a term specific to Julian Jaynes and the article scope is stated to be broader than just Jaynes' theories. Bicameralism is the more general term. Skyerise (talk) 19:49, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Could you cite sources that draw a distinction between the two? Remsense  诉  09:32, 12 February 2024 (UTC)


 * APA Dictionary of Psychology defines the term "bicameralism". The Harvard Crimson refers to Jaynes theory as involving the "breakdown of bicameralism". Rational Wiki states: "In psychology, "bicameralism" is Julian Jaynes' hypothesis that the left and right sides of the human brain used to operate separately, with the thoughts of one appearing as auditory hallucinations in the other, until just a few thousand years ago, when humans suddenly became conscious as we know it." Jack Tanner uses the term "bicameralism" in his book Zarathustra’s Out of Body Experience. William Housley refers to Jaynes' theories as "bicameralism" in a Cardiff University working paper. Marcel Kuijsten uses the term "bicameralism" in Hypnosis as a vestige of the bicameral mind, published in the journal Contemporary Hypnosis & Integrative Therapy. In general, while Jaynes used the term "bicameral mind", secondary sources discussing his theories refer to "bicameralism" as the subject they are discussing. Skyerise (talk) 20:40, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Works for me. Remsense  诉  20:45, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * PUT NEW TEXT UNDER OLD TEXT. entry above breaks the timeline of the discussion, so the thread of the argument is now confused! B.Sirota (talk) 03:31, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Referring to my earlier comment (below, 22:05, 13 Feb), secondary sources are NOT necessarily to establish ‘what a primary source says’; in fact, when they describe or restate primary source contents they sometimes introduce error or bias. Re the examples above: APA, Harvard and Housley all name Jaynes's book incorrectly; APA is a Tertiary Source, not Secondary; the Rational Wiki is not a legitimate source; Tanner is pure pop culture; Housley attributes words to Jaynes without a reference:  Be cautious about the Harvard article (1977): it is a perfect example of a Primary Source about a lecture given by Jaynes,  These examples are a handful, they have their reasons, but they do not show the 'generality' of usage that you claim. Check this page for 'bicameral mentality': B.Sirota (talk) 05:02, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * (Text goes under the question or comment that is being responded to). Please see WP:SECONDARY: it is Policy: "Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources. Articles may make an analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claim only if it has been published by a reliable secondary source." Also, we prefer independent sources: "Identifying and using independent sources (also called third-party sources) helps editors build non-promotional articles that fairly portray the subject, without undue attention to the subject's own views.", so the Julian Jaynes Society would not be preferred over the multiple sources I cited. Skyerise (talk) 09:40, 14 February 2024 (UTC)


 * 1) This discussion is not a Q & A between two people; New text goes at the bottom of a (i.e. name-change) to keep the timeline and prevent logical disconnection between statements. 2) Common-sense is a primary skill for editing; Policies and Guidelines are not "rules";  you are telling me "rules" instead of responding to my argument. 3) 2nd-ary sources are indeed for WP:DUE "analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claims" about FACTS, EVENTS, BOOKS, etc.; A book's content is a 'fact' independent of 2nd-ary source 'opinions' about the content;  4) Here's an essay about Primary Sources WP:USEPRIMARY. 5) Your Independent Source objection is irrelevant. The JJ-Society page was used for examples of word-usage, which has nothing to do with promotion of the Society or their opinions. They are a 2nd-ary source about Jaynes's theories, with possible errors and biases just like any other source. B.Sirota (talk) 17:54, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * please stop cluttering the discussion with attempts to tell me how to reply. It is you who are clouding the discussion with unnecessary verbiage. I will reply how I choose to. Skyerise (talk) 20:02, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * As to the use of sources, it is reasonable to use the book as a primary source in the article about the book. However, an article on the theory should be based primarily on secondary sources. Skyerise (talk) 20:04, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I see. You want 'the Book' article to describe and explain everything about all of its theories, even though Jaynes also wrote other publications about them, and you want 'the theory' article to be everyone else's commentary, under a name he never used. Is that it? B.Sirota (talk) 21:23, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * It's not me who wants it. It's what our policies dictate. Articles on theories should be primarily based on secondary, independent sources and should be titled based on how those secondary sources refer to the topic. Skyerise (talk) 21:26, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * And the last source you would use is the person who researched the evidence, developed the arguments, originated a new theory, gave it a name, and started the discussion by laying it all out in several publications. B.Sirota (talk) 21:36, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:SECONDARY, which is (non-optional) Policy: "Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources. Articles may make an analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claim only if it has been published by a reliable secondary source." Skyerise (talk) 22:16, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * "Secondary sources are not necessarily independent sources." and
 * "Whether a source is primary or secondary depends on context." In the context of 'Jaynes's theory', it's obvious that his publications provide reliable, 2nd-ary and necessary perspectives about the theory, and deserve WP:DUE consideration in the theory article. Other sources establish notability as well as interpretation. B.Sirota (talk) 22:48, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Jaynes writing about his own theory is a primary source, despite your pointless wikilawyering; it is also not independent, which is another of the requirements which you ignored. As you're clearly a single-purpose account probably connected to the Jaynes Foundation, you have a conflict of interest which apparently keeps you from even attempting to understand Wikipedia's point of view, reasons for policies, etc. So I'm done talking to someone who isn't trying to understand or really even listening. Skyerise (talk) 20:11, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for bringing attention to WP:LAWYERING. Here's 1 relevant quote: "...when a person superficially judges other editors and their actions by jumping to conclusions and slapping labels while brandishing Wikipedia policies as a tool for defeating other Wikipedians rather than resolving a conflict or finding a mutually agreeable solution." Everything in your comment above displays your expertise at Lawyering: You're accusation against me is not only absolutely false, but utterly illogical, since I've argued only about content and policies as per common sense; you've asserted that "policies dictate" according to your strictest possible interpretation of them (another example of Lawyering: "Asserting that the technical interpretation of the policies and guidelines should override the underlying principles they express.") It's not my problem that you're self-appointed right to preach at me is not persuasive. B.Sirota (talk) 11:15, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Something about WP:POT there, I think. In any case, I've moved back the material that I moved to 'the Book' and restored that article's content to how it was as well. How about we compromise? Can we agree to move this article to "Bicameral mind"? I can be satisfied with that if you can. This article is already mostly sourced to secondary sources, I just thought you might want to edit the book article to give more of an outline of its presentation, but if you'd rather continue to argue, by all means, do so! Skyerise (talk) 12:30, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * If most everybody agrees that a namechange to "Bicameralism..." is not necessary, or that it doesn't resolve an obvious problem, then in my opinion this discussion can be closed. Other matters of article quality probably belong elsewhere. B.Sirota (talk) 20:41, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * You didn't agree to move it to Bicameral mind, so for now the move to Bicameralism (psychology) is still open. Move discussions typically remain open for a month, and it seems like the majority (all except you), favor the move to Bicameralism. Offer expired. Skyerise (talk) 20:54, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh, and as for any of Jaynes' theories not contained in Origin, they are only notable if they have been covered by secondary sources. If they are not covered by secondary sources, they should not be in either article. Skyerise (talk) 21:30, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I rephrased my unintended implication above that other theories are in other publications; I meant all the theories in the Book also mentioned elsewhere. B.Sirota (talk) 21:39, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Jaynes coined the terms "bicameral mind", "bicamerality", and "bicameral mentality", all of which appear in most secondary sources about his theory, at least before 2005. At that time, Wiki's first title of this article about Jaynes's theory was "Bicameralism", even though only a handful of sources had ever used the term. What in your view is the "more general" meaning of 'bicameralism'? B.Sirota (talk) 22:49, 11 February 2024 (UTC)


 * If that's the case, all the material should be merged into the article about the book. Skyerise (talk) 11:16, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * argues for either a confusing name-change or a confused move/merge, in order to solve an unclear problem. If the article is about one of Jaynes’s theories, then the current name is at least correct, but “Bicameralism” is completely wrong. If the article is really about something else, as Skyerise argues, then it should be clearly rewritten and given a new name, but why “Bicameralism”? If the article is just written very badly (as I believe it is), a name-change will not help.
 * Definitely NO to “Bicameralism” in reference to Jaynes : An “-ism” always suggests some kind doctrine, or belief system, as expressed for example, by democracies that value divided government; democracies “practice“ bicameralism. Jaynes and most sources never used the term for his theory. Its past appearance on Wiki is irrelevant because Wiki does not count as a source. The “elsewhere” cited above, Bicameralism (psychology), is nothing but an earlier version of the current article, with many of the same errors, nonsense and irrelevancies about Jaynes’s book and theories. The most glaring error was the name “Bicameralism” and ! Wiki reported the falsehood for years, and probably influenced its propagation. If “Bicameralism” is recycled, it must clearly be sourced and defined as peculiar, not commonplace. B.Sirota (talk) 17:07, 13 February 2024 (UTC)


 * In any case, if a name-change is rejected, a merger with ‘the Book’ is not the automatic alternative. Such a “correction” makes sense only to editors who presume Jaynes’s book is the only primary source on bicamerality, or that everything in the book is about bicamerality. B.Sirota (talk) 17:07, 13 February 2024 (UTC)


 * First off, it is secondary sources we are looking for, not primary ones. If you have other (secondary) sources supporting the use of any of the terms by writers other than Jaynes, then please go ahead and list them here. The WP:BURDEN is on you to show what reliable sources other than Origin use the term(s) for something beyond Jaynes' theories. If all the uses are in reference to Origin, then there should only be one article: on the book and the theory it contains. Skyerise (talk) 20:10, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * PUT NEW TEXT UNDER OLD TEXT. inserted text at 20:40, 13 Feb into the middle of the 11 Feb discussion above. It should have been here. I did not see it before writing the following. B.Sirota (talk) 03:42, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I'll borrow from my comment at Talk:The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind: (1) Secondary sources are necessary to establish notability of a topic and to avoid a Wiki-editor's O.R. with regard to analysis, commentary, evaluation, context, interpretation, criticism, etc. However, secondary sources are NOT necessarily to establish ‘what a primary source says’; in fact, when they describe or restate primary source contents they sometimes introduce error or bias. Any author's published books and accessible documents are absolutely reliable sources for their explicit content, and should be directly referenced with relevant quotations. In other words, Jaynes's own published words are the ultimate reliable source about his theories! Do you seriously think otherwise? (2) Your sentence about the  "burden" on me is extremely confusing: can you please clarify what you mean by "terms for something beyond Jaynes' theories"? Either the article is about (at least) one of Jaynes's ideas or it is not. If you want examples of other sources talking about Jaynes's theory using his terminology, check Wiktionary:  / quotations; and  (3) You seem convinced that Jaynes only had one theory, and that all or most sources are basically just book reviews, or pop culture. If my impression is wrong, please help me out. B.Sirota (talk) 22:05, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * if Jaynes had other theories which are not in the Book and not independently notable, then they belong in Julian Jaynes rather than either of the articles being discussed here. Skyerise (talk) 12:10, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment If this article were to be moved, I would rather it be moved to Bicameralism in psychology per WP:NATDIS. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 04:34, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Agree. I agree that your proposal is better. Skyerise (talk) 11:09, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Given the current content of the article, I recommend AGAINST the proposed move. Edits might give the article better balance, but the article discusses a hypothesis, not an "ism." Canhelp (talk) 17:00, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Relisting comment - I'm not seeing anythign in the way of consensus for a move right now, but there's still been fairly recent dialogue, so hoping another week may make things clearer &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 13:07, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

MERGE, FRINGE
Please see: Talk:Julian Jaynes.

Summary: Aspects of his hypothesis having "inspired" some later research doesn't equate to his work being proven correct, and cognitive science, evolutionary psychology, and related displines decreasingly support it, most especially his central notion that consciousness only arose a few millennia ago. Furthermore, it was proposed at that article to move it and reshape it into an article on the book, since the person is not notable for anything other than one book. Instead, the subject has been WP:CFORKed (arguably WP:POVFORKed) into further articles (The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind, and bicameral mentality). The bio mostly just repeats claims from the book article (but with barely any hint of controversy or challenge, and strong suggestions of influence), while the book article is mostly just repetition of what is said at the hypothesis article (but without much of the critical material from the latter).

It is thus proposed to merge these into a single article on the hypothesis, the book it came from, and who wrote it, with all the critical material present, and expanded by more recent work on consciousness and cognitition. Even if they were not merged, they have to stop viewpoint-forking (and coatracking of the hypothesis across all three articles).

Anyway, please follow up at the Talk:Julian_Jaynes discussion thread, so this stays centralized. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:20, 26 March 2024 (UTC)