Talk:List of psychic abilities

More Information
There is a lot more information on these topics that is extremely hard to find 'unadulterated', if you know what I mean, but this site has some extremely good information and also some reliable links as well: PsiPog.net Shimon 15:05, 23 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sgewirtz (talk • contribs)

Empathy
There is currently some question among editors regarding the inclusion of empathy. Per that linked article, the common meaning of that term is the very human ability to understand the emotions of others. A few superheroes have a "souped up" version, see List of superhuman features and abilities in fiction, but I am not aware of it ever being discussed in the context of psychic abilities in general. If someone can find a source discussing this we could probably include it with a caveat, but as is I am not sure what value is added to this article by adding it. - 2/0 (cont.) 14:17, 26 July 2010 (UTC

"Alleged"
I am new to editing wiki pages, so I hope this is the right forum for this suggestion. Since none of these abilities have ever been proven to exist, shouldn't there be some sort of statement that no studies have verified any of these. Otherwise people could just make up psychic abilities and everyone would have to take them on their word. For example, I have the ability to communicate with toothbrushes- a phenomenon known as Toothbrushasthesia. This is just as valid as the claim that a person can be in two places at once (which has actually made the list despite it obviously being bullshit.)


 * It seems to me that the first two sentences of the article address your concerns. (Also, please remember to sign your talk page messages by typing ~ at the end.) Looie496 (talk) 17:07, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi, welcome to editing Wikipedia. If you read the introduction to this article carefully, you'll note that this article does not state that these psychic abilities actually exist. Rather, it says that these abilities have been attributed to real people, which is undeniably true. People have claimed to have these abilities, and these claims are documented in various reliable sources such as academic books. This is how Wikipedia works: statements made in articles must be verifiable, which means that they have to be supported by citations from reliable sources like academic books. That's why you can't add "Toothbrushasthesia", because you won't be able to find a reliable source stating that real people have been said to have this ability. Ryan Paddy (talk) 23:31, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Empathy
I have added a referenced a web page for the addition of Empathic. Being an Empath is not the same as having empathy for some one or something. http://www.theuniversalempath101.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=99&Itemid=173 Nickaronni (talk) 23:34, 26 July 2011 (UTC) Nickaronni


 * theuniversalempath101.com is not a reliable source, and the Empathy article doesn't have anything to do with this supposed psychic ability. We can definitely include it, but we need reliable sourcing first. As it stands now, there's no indication this has been attributed to any real person.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 23:44, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok how about this book . The Author is Dr Michael R. Smith Ph.D., 2002, Counseling, The University of Nevada-Reno . I am trying to provide a "reliable" source and i hope this qualifiesNickaronni (talk) 00:41, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Eh... that source is primary, in that the author makes brief mention of his claim to have the ability. He doesn't describe it, or attribute it to anyone else. Since our Empathy article doesn't describe the psychic ability, we'd also need a reliable source which gave us some description of the ability that we could use. Could you find something like that? I'd prefer to improve that source to a secondary source (i.e. one that attributes the ability to other people), but I think as long as we have a solid description, it will be minimally sufficient for the claim. So, can you find a reliable source for the description? Good work :)  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 19:28, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I think the relevant guideline here is notability. If "empath" is a notable psychic ability attributed to real people, then it qualifies for both to have an article on Wikipedia and to be an item in this list. I don't think that's the case (I think it's a term usually used to describe a superhuman ability in fiction), but suitable reliable sources could prove me wrong. Ryan Paddy (talk) 09:36, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Pyrokinesis
I think several other forms of psychic abilities are missing from the list.I couldn't edit the info myself so I thought a suggestion would be nice. I only remember "pyrokinesis" right now.It is the ability to cause vibration,and eventually fire.If I'm not wrong,please someone add it to the list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.176.213.59 (talk) 16:02, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Revert
I recently reverted an edit by an ip that made substantial changes to the article. I'm concerned with a few things I happened to see in the changes. It's likely there are some good changes mixed in as well, but I'd like to discuss the reason for the changes so we can separate out the good stuff from the problems. Among my concerns, there is: IP, can you summarize some of the changes you're hoping to make to the article? Maybe we can come up with a better way to make improvements. Thanks! &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 06:15, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Problematic wording (like This ability is debated, however, as it defies the laws of physics and science. This is a given for the page. Inserting it here implies that other abilities might not be in the same category. The word "debated" is also problematic; it's not debated in science, certainly.
 * 2) A lot of content added which is novel, but which doesn't cite any new sources. This seems to be original research.
 * 3) Red links added, such as Death sense.
 * 4) Added empathy. We've been over this one a whole lot. We need a source for it. Our Empathy article doesn't cover this at all.

I'd hardly consider including additional clair- abilities that are easily google-able (and which Wikipedia itself has articles on, and which dictionaries themselves offer definitions for) as "novel additions", nor would I consider distinguishing from things the practicing communities consider Paranormal abilities and Paranormal SKILLS (not the same) a "novel addition" either. If one were to look within the Paranormal community for sources of Empathy, there is no debate by those who have the ability about whether or not it is or is not the same as Telekinesis (it's not even close or related in the slightest), or whether or not it is synonymous with the usual human ability of empathy/sympathy. The two are described as very different by those who have the ability. You get your usual fluffs claiming that "liking solitude and having a short attention span" (among other frivolous things) makes you "Empathic", but the bulk of the educated community who legitimate believes they have this ability will tell you that's not the case in the slightest. Empathy is also sometimes called clairempathy and lumped in with several variations of the clair- family of abilities. There's plenty of sources out there.

Speaking of the source arguments riddling this page... Fact is science will not study these things because the existence of Paranormal Abilities is widely disputed. Indeed, all things spiritual or paranormal are widely disputed and disregarded (and if you think things are "not disputed in science", you really don't know anything about the academic community. There's a LOT of dispute in the academic and scientific communities about more than just these subjects) the bulk of most academic communities do not deign to take them seriously enough to study them in the first place. Instead of hanging on to strictly academic sources which cannot and will not often study these things- not unless it it specifically to attempt to debunk their existence entirely despite the large numbers of people claiming to hold them and whom go through extensive methods of validation to test these abilities- the community of people itself with these abilities SHOULD be the primary source, if not at least a source to be considered, and should be looked at in greater depth. Sometimes "scientific sources" just do not exist, but that is most certainly not a reason to throw out or ignore other sources that are available.

As for the idea of "Alleged abilities", all of these abilities are "alleged". God is alleged, too. It cannot (as of yet) be scientifically proven nor disproven (kind of like Paranormal abilities). But if the problem is with the fear of people adding random abilities to the list which may or may not exist? Then changing the opening sentence of the article to "This is a list of psychic abilities that have been attributed to(,?) or have been claimed to be held by real-world people." would solve the problem quite simply with 8 words.98.178.180.192 (talk) 09:10, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reversion, Jess. I saw the state of the article a few days ago and was meaning to do the same kind of edit, but hadn't found time. IP, there don't need to be scientific sources for this article. What's needed is any kind of reliable source, such as a book about psychics from a reputable publisher, documenting that people believe certain things about psychic abilities. For example, if someone can find a suitable reliable source that describes a widespread belief in a difference between psychic abilities and psychic skills, then that information can be added to the article. While it may seem to be common and undisputed knowledge to you, it's not to other editors, which means that according to the policies of Wikipedia it needs an appropriate source. There are a number of good sources at the bottom of the article, demonstrating that it's quite possible to find appropriate sources for this kind of content. Ryan Paddy (talk) 17:06, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

List pruning
I looked fairly carefully through the list and eliminated entries for which there was a) no reference or no article, b) no mention of the ability as a psychic ability (except sometimes for fictional characters). The list of removed items, along with my reasons, follows.


 * Aerokinesis – redirect to Psychokinesis which does not mention it - all links to redirect are from abilities of fictional characters.
 * Biokinesis - no article, no ref.
 * Death-warning – The ability to undergo sensation of impending death associated with near-death experience. – linked article does not mention the piped text, so this can't stand even with a reference.
 * Electrokinesis – linked article does not mention as a psychic ability.
 * Empathy – linked article does not mention as a psychic ability.
 * Energy manipulation – no article, no ref.


 * Foresight or Prediction – Moved to Prophesy


 * Hypnosis – linked article does not mention as a psychic ability.
 * Invisibility – linked article does not mention as a psychic ability, except perhaps in fiction.
 * Mind Control – linked article does not mention as a psychic ability, except in fiction.
 * Hydrokinesis – no article, no ref.
 * Omnipresence – The ability to be present in multiple places at the same time. - That's not what "omnipresent" means, so I have to discount the ref – no mention in linked article as a psychic ability
 * Omniscience – linked article does not mention as a psychic ability, except for a fictional character or as a religious subject.
 * Omnipotence – linked article does not mention as a psychic ability.
 * Postdiction linked article clearly treats this as a non-psychic ability
 * Psychic shield – no article, no ref.
 * Technopathy – linked article does not mention as a psychic ability.

In several cases, the remaining entries seem to be simply different names for the same purported ability, but where separate WP articles exist, I left them alone.  &mdash; jmcgnh  (talk) (contribs)  08:13, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * What do people think of Lucid dreaming as member of this list?  &mdash; jmcgnh  (talk) (contribs)  08:17, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Cynthisa (talk) 23:06, 25 September 2017 (UTC) Agree with your rationale for list pruning. I've prune a few more. I've removed these because they are mental skills, abilities or traits explained by rational science and do not rely on a paranormal or "supernatural" explanation.

Eidetic memory -

Cynthisa (talk) 23:06, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Intuition – The ability to acquire knowledge without proof, evidence, or conscious reasoning, or without understanding how the knowledge was acquired, but instead having direct access to unconscious knowledge, unconscious cognition, inner sensing, inner insight to unconscious pattern-recognition and the ability to understand something instinctively, without the need for conscious reasoning.

Major copyediting
I had an edit conflict attempting to restore proper edits. I'll leave it be for now but a number of changes were not improvements. Thanks, — Paleo Neonate  – 07:55, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Precisely which of the basic grammatical and punctuational errors that were corrected do you perceive as proper? WikiEditorial101 (talk) 08:22, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Please audit my recent changes. I agree with some of your changes, others had style issues (MOS:QUOTEMARKS and MOS:PUNCT). Thanks, — Paleo  Neonate  – 03:39, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Empathy and Psychic abilities.
(moved from my Talk page)

Speaking as an empath myself, the empathy ability does belong on that list. I am unsure as to why you feel it should not but seeing as it is a dynamic list, there is nothing saying it shouldn't. I apologize if I have come off as rude, but just becasue that is my only real edit does not mean that the information I have contributed is lesser. Thank you. A M W Harris (talk) 23:13, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * This does not belong on my Talk page but on the Talk page of the article: Talk:List of psychic abilities.
 * I don't "feel" it should not. Empathy is normal, not paranormal. If you want Wikipedia to say otherwise, you need to give reliable sources that say otherwise. Without those sources, any argument is pointless. Read WP:RS. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:27, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm quite sure they are referring to this page, with which I agree should be added to the list. DJ10wiki (talk) 20:03, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Ah! Yes. Different thing. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:11, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Wiki Page needed
For Clairaugustance (psychic tasting) and Clairolfactance (psychic smelling).

Ed 2607:FEA8:483:8E00:E449:C258:32CD:3933 (talk) 14:53, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Do you have any reliable sources for those? If not, we cannot do that. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:27, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Powers
It's unclassified if psycic powers are real, yet some people claim they are psycic. How are we supposed to find out if they are? 209.195.66.178 (talk) 00:51, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * They are all not real. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:11, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Wanted.
Please reply on the POWERS topic. 209.195.66.178 (talk) 00:55, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Criteria for inclusion?
I’m really confused as to what the criteria are for inclusion on this list.

The page says “This is a list of psychic abilities attributed to real-world people.” But what counts as a “psychic” ability, as opposed to some other kind of paranormal ability?

For example, the list includes “Inedia—The ability to survive without eating or drinking.” The linked-to page says nothing to indicate that inedia is seen as a “psychic” ability. Likewise with shapeshifting—there are lots of kinds of shapeshifting in folklore, but the linked-to page about shapeshifting doesn’t say anything about it being seen as a psychic ability.

So I feel like for this page to make sense as a list, it needs to more clearly define what it means by “psychic.”

The opening sentence of the page links to the article for “Psychic,” but that article is primarily about people who are known as psychics. Possibly the article on “Parapsychology” would be a better place to link to, but that page too doesn’t clearly delineate what counts as a psychic ability as such. Elysdir (talk) 02:41, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * You are right. The problem is: Is there a consensus about what counts as psychic? The people who believe that those things are real are all unreliable sources, and most of those who don't are not interested. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:16, 7 July 2024 (UTC)