Talk:Introspection

Psychological Editing
Hi, I am a current psychology student planning on making several substantial edits/additions to this article. I will be editing this article for a university course project that is affiliated with the Association for Psychological Sciences. More specifically, I will be adding new content illustrating the origins of introspection in psychology in addition to some more current, applied uses. Further, I will attempt to slightly restructure the article's layout so as to maximize readability. Lastly, I will also be taking a close look at the references and citations currently listed for this article, and possibly removing/adding based on relevance. My edits will pertain exclusively to the psychological perspective; and as such, I do not plan on altering any philosophical or spiritual content as I am no authority in either regard. I welcome anyone's constructive input, and thank you in advance for your cooperation! Crossfire8228 (talk) 00:26, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit: My university project is now complete. I hope others will continue to improve this article, specifically the section pertaining to religion. Crossfire8228 (talk) 15:17, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Spiritual/religious bias
The usage of the words "heart" and "soul" from the line that included "... the rumination of one's own heart, mind, or soul ..." implies a spiritual/religious perspective and were removed. Introspection is a purely mental process using one's brain. Incorrect sayings suggesting the "heart" as the source of emotions and spiritual/religous concepts like a "soul" are not scientifically valid enough to use in an Encyclopedia article on a mental process. Usernamefortonyd 00:55, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Good. Wikipedia needs less of that crap.  Oddity- (talk) 18:20, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Seconded. Dmarquard (talk) 00:31, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Just an observation: to say that heart, mind or soul implies a 'spiritual' or 'religious' perspective, fair enough. But it is rather contradicting to reference the brain itself and then use the term 'mental process' which implies a transcendent process involving the brain as merely a body. In short, replacing 'heart, mind or soul' with 'mental' is more so political rather than anything objective or 'scientifically valid'.209.105.184.93 (talk) 14:19, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

There are too many logical fallacies and bias in Wikipedia, evident in the writing by everyone, science minded people included. Scientific validity is less important than philosophical validity in three ways. Firstly, Ioannidis has proven that more than half of all published research is false. Secondly, quantum mechanics proves mind is non-local. Ergo, science itself is facing a crisis by the name of quantum mechanics to the degree that the entire field of "physics", as one example, isn't actually valid. It can't be, because space and time do not exist. Thirdly, Psychology literally means "the study of the soul". You can't erase that. While the hard sciences are becoming softer in grappling with bias and quantum mechanics, psychology tries to make itself harder to avoid ridicule. Instead, realize that those who ridicule in the first place are the problem, because they have not checked their bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.84.253.58 (talk) 19:39, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Link
The link Sample blog about Introspection doesn't seem to have nothing to do with introspection. Thus, I have removed it. David Andel 16:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No double negative.Lestrade (talk) 22:16, 3 March 2012 (UTC)Lestrade

Plato original research
I agree with the original research tag on the following sentence, and so I decided to move it here for discussion and proper sourcing. It very well be the case that introspection is as Plato described, but some secondary source needs to make the connection. If someone can provide a reliable source where such a connection is made, please move the following back to the main article. "Introspection is like the activity described by Plato when he asked, '…why should we not calmly and patiently review our own thoughts, and thoroughly examine and see what these appearances in us really are?'" -FrankTobia (talk) 02:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * What exactly does the new source say? It seems oddly vague to say that one process is "like" another: are they two different things or not? MartinPoulter (talk) 11:35, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Copyright issue review
An editor surmised that the Hinduism section was copy-pasted from

However, while page 16 (and 17) of that book contains the subheadings (Introspect, Detect, etc.) I didn't see a sign that the text of the sections came from the book. (Arguably, a bigger problem is that the text may be OR). I replaced the ref with an online ref, which will help in case someone wants to pursue the OR possibility.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  18:30, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Introspection and Religion subsections
The subsections under Introspection and religion seem mismatched. The first few briefly describe the role of introspection in several religions/spiritual traditions, and the rest seem to outline a process for introspecting. I suggest splitting these up, and doing a thorough review of the procedural info which seems a bit questionable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.88.32.47 (talk) 01:40, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Eastern Christianity vs Eastern Spirituality
The terms "eastern Christianity" and "Eastern spirituality" refer to two different families of belief systems. It isn't clear which of the two the section is actually about.76.75.106.118 (talk) 20:52, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Introspection and autism
I don't think that the material in this article is particularly related to autism. The article doesn't mention it at all. So I have removed the WikiProject Autism tag in the interest of clarity. The remaining WikiProjects (Psychology, Philosophy, and Cognitive science) seen appropriate. Parabolooidal (talk) 20:50, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The article on self-awareness which "is the capacity for introspection" explicitly mentions autism. The relevance of introspection to autism is obvious to anyone who has studied both. If this article doesn't mention autism yet, wouldn't members of WP:AUTISM be exactly the people to add that information? The article also doesn't mention "philosophy" or "cognitive science" but I won't remove those just to make a WP:POINT. Are you going to remove the WP:AUTISM tag every time you see it? This is disruptive. More than that, it's bullying. Muffinator (talk) 21:57, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok, I guess you meant to put your tag on self-awareness?  Autism's not mentioned at all in Introspection.  It that what you meant?  Parabolooidal (talk) 23:35, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I already explained how introspection and self-awareness are related. The tag belongs on both pages. The lack of a mention in the article is a nonsense argument. First of all, WP:Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Even if it were, the omission of information in an article is not a statement that the information is false. It could be non-notable, disputed, or just something that Wikipedia editors have not yet paid attention to. Anyone can retroactively make the premise false by adding autism resources to the bottom of the page. This article is relevant to WP:AUTISM editors even if it doesn't mention autism by name, for the same reason that League of Legends player Burrd didn't vanish from existence when he was removed from List of autistic people. It seems to me that Parabolooidal is only interested in repeatedly restating their position without addressing the counterarguments, so unless that changes or a third person wants to join us, I'm just going to let them have the WP:Last word at this point. Muffinator (talk) 00:12, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Rufus Dialogue - Is this a real term?
I have searched online for links to "Rufus Dialogue" and there are very few and some of those seem to have come from Wikipedia.

Does anyone know where "Rufus Dialogue" comes from?

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Introspection. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110610232731/http://www-psych.stanford.edu/~knutson/aaa/boring53.pdf to http://www-psych.stanford.edu/~knutson/aaa/boring53.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:03, 22 January 2018 (UTC)