Talk:Spoon theory/Archive 1

See Also links
Way too many 'See Also' links in my opinion, especially for such a small article. Most aren't directly relevant. 2602:306:3113:8970:D9B8:3616:5892:FC56 (talk) 07:01, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree. This article isn't intended to be a long list of chronic conditions. I just removed many of the links, and left only the more general terms, which seem relevant to the article. Nocowardsoulismine (talk) 14:58, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

WP:DEADHORSE
Naked grab for notability through invention of poor metaphor. This is only a clumsy attempt to describe Ego depletion, for which we have an article. Anyone is welcome to cite this inept metaphor on that page. &mdash; Xiong &#29066; talk * 09:29, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Restored redirect to accepted term. Don't agree? Discuss it here. &mdash; Xiong &#29066; talk * 21:25, 26 November 2017 (UTC)


 * See also the discussion on the Ego depletion talk page
 * Gbear605 (talk) 22:10, 26 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Unilaterally redirecting an article to another article which does not mention the term, and where an ongoing discussion is (so far) in favour of not redirecting this page there, is not helpful to our readers. --bonadea contributions talk 12:07, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

All edits are unilateral. I agree there is more discussion at Talk:Ego depletion and so I shall continue there. &mdash; Xiong &#29066; talk * 02:21, 28 November 2017 (UTC) &mdash; Xiong &#29066; talk)

Careful reading reveals the referent of the spoon metaphor to be (medical) weakness. If anyone wishes to draw a finer distinction, let him do so now. &mdash; Xiong &#29066; talk * 03:12, 28 November 2017 (UTC)


 * It wouldn't be weakness, since that's about physical muscles while "spoon theory" is about having the mental energy/ability to do it. I could say that I don't have enough spoons to think about a complex issue (like, say, whether this page should redirect to another Wikipedia page) but I wouldn't talk about weakness in that sense, from my reading of the weakness page
 * Gbear605 (talk) 03:35, 28 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I added some better references which I believe give a better case for notability, including both news and journal articles. Spoon theory has had 24,000 page views in the last 30 days, and is one of the most popular pages that fall under WikiProject Disability. That's more than the page views of ego depletion and weakness combined. The spoon theory is a concept that has taken on a meaning of its own, apart from the simple "spoons as units of energy" meaning it was originally meant to convey. As evidenced in the sources I added, spoons are a symbol that have become deeply ingrained in the culture of the disabled and chronically ill. If readers wanted to view an article about the symptom, they'd search for that. When readers search for spoon theory, they are looking to read about the symbol that has become a cultural phenomenon. This should not be a redirect - Nocowardsoulismine (talk) 15:59, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, let's sort this out. Either the metaphor refers to energy, which is physical; or willpower, which is mental. Two other alternatives are that there are multiple referents or none; in either case the metaphor itself then is meaningless.

Please decide.

Discussion of the notability of a alternate name or description of a standard phenomenon is out of order here. It's irrelevant whether, in recent times, a fad has developed to describe physical energy or mental willpower by means of spoons. Either way it is not a distinct subject.

Please make a decision.

&mdash; Xiong &#29066; talk * 23:00, 28 November 2017 (UTC)


 * By my understanding, the difference between the three is: weakness is about physical muscles while ego depletion and "spoon theory" are both mental. Ego depletion and "spoon theory" are different for a few reasons. First, "spoon theory" primarily applies to people with disabilities while ego depletion is used more generally - disabilities are not discussed on the ego depletion article while they are the focus of the "spoon theory" article. Second, "spoon theory" is more about a lack of mental energy to accomplish a task while ego depletion is more about self-control and stopping oneself from doing something. Third, "spoon theory" is used as a metaphor colloquially while ego depletion is a technical term.
 * I would say that the two articles (ego depletion and "spoon theory") could theoretically be combined, but "spoon theory" is notable enough and separate enough that it would first need to get a separate section on the ego depletion page.
 * Gbear605 (talk) 00:34, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

It is not clear that the referent is "mental energy". I thought so on first reading but it now appears that spoons are intended to represent a physical limitation. If this point cannot be settled then the metaphor is useless nonsense. Spoons must, in some way, refer to some aspect of human experience.

I suggest it profitable to browse articles until the referent becomes clear. I do not see that spoons describe any new dimension of the human condition.

&mdash; Xiong &#29066; talk * 12:38, 29 November 2017 (UTC)


 * This discussion would probably be more productive at WP:AfD, since there's no consensus here. You could present your thoughts there, and have the benefit of hearing more opinions. - Nocowardsoulismine (talk) 14:57, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

No, I think talk on another page is premature at best, obstructionism at worst. This talk page is specifically designed to bear discussion of the matching article.

Lack of consensus is remedied through discussion, the free expression of considered opinion. If you have an opinion, what is it? Are spoons a metaphor for physical or mental energy... or perhaps, something else?

Surely the literature surrounding such an important and popular topic must, somewhere, define its term.

&mdash; Xiong &#29066; talk * 02:15, 30 November 2017 (UTC)


 * My interpretation of the metaphor is that it can mean either physical or mental energy. It is used by people across a wide range of experiences, including those with physical illnesses, mental illnesses, and physical illnesses which impair mental/cognitive function. The type of energy involved necessarily varies according to the nature of each diagnosis. Spoon theory's openness to interpretation is perhaps one reason it has caught on among people who have widely differing impairments.


 * The metaphor was created to illustrate the limitations faced by the chronically ill, so that healthy people could understand the dilemma of having to ration their energy for mundane tasks. While spoons do represent energy, the emphasis of spoon theory is the rationing of that energy. Even more specifically, it emphasizes energy rationing in the context of chronic illness and disability. Furthermore, it explains these things in layman's terms. The subtraction of spoons from a pile, is something more readily understood than the technical jargon that may accompany medical articles. Each spoon is subtracted when a daily task is performed. That cause-and-effect connects the medical symptoms with real world repercussions. It "brings it home", so to speak, for the listener. Spoon theory gives healthy people a glimpse into the world of the disabled. - Nocowardsoulismine (talk) 17:36, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Mostly you are arguing for the notability of the metaphor, which is not in question. I came looking for spoons when a meatspace friend used them; I wanted to know what he meant. I still want to know what spoons mean. I would have been disappointed to find no page defining "spoon theory"; I am disappointed to find that Spoon theory does not define its terms.

The fact that the metaphor is stupid is irrelevant. There is no need to defend its use; it is used and that's enough.

If you seriously maintain spoons represent both physical energy and the will to employ it, then clearly a redirect will not do. Another means must be used to tidy up.

I do wish editors would not clutter the discussion by repeating the bizarre statements made in page content. All humans experience limits; we all tire, physically and mentally. Anyone waving spoons around might as well say "I'm exhausted" or "I tire easily" or even "I don't have the strength to attempt that task."

None of these simple statements has quite the snap-crackle-pop of a shiny hypnotic spoon... but they all have the simple advantage of being readily understood by anyone. I think spoons are employed to confuse, to baffle the uninitiated, to stop rude boneheads from starting an exchange: Oh no, you're not really tired!

Spoons are particularly opaque here, since no analogy can be drawn from them to any form of energy. Spoons are not consumed or destroyed by use; one teaspoon can shovel a mountain of ice cream and string beans. Eating, resting, sleeping replenish energy (mental and physical); rest takes significant time... while spoons may be purchased cheaply anywhere. Dirty spoons may be washed, and so on.

All told, it is patently obvious that anyone babbling about spoons when he is exhausted is... babbling. But the rest of us have good reason to wonder: What's he babbling about?

That's all that need concern us, to serve the reader. There is no need to debate whether the metaphor is complete bollocks. Nobody who searches for spoons cares. We just need to supply the referent.

&mdash; Xiong &#29066; talk * 02:54, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Based on the above discussion, I believe there is a consensus that spoon theory is not just ego depletion, but a combination of that, fatigue, and other factors that are experienced as a single condition. Thus, unlike ego depletion, this has physical as well as mental components. (One might believe they are strongly interrelated. At an extreme, one might believe that ego depletion is the usual root cause and the claimed physical exhaustion tends to be a mostly or entirely illusory self-deception.  Even in that extreme situation - which may sometimes be true, but there have been counterexamples, so we know this is not always the case - both of them are still experienced in the perception of the sufferer.  "Spoon theory" appears to refer to the combination as experienced, regardless of the cause.)  I have put a note near the article's top to clarify this. Winged Cat (talk) 19:27, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your careful work on this issue. To discourage revival of the dead horse, I've foregrounded "mental and physical" in the lead paragraph and added an explanatory footnote on the use of the word "theory". --Thnidu (talk) 17:14, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you, and good call. Winged Cat (talk) 09:13, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Notability? Credibility? Reliability?
While this is not a "peer reviewed theory" it is a credible one as it is widely used throughout the disability community. I am working to reorganize the bibliography as well as give a more concrete definition of spoon theory by merging the first and secon paragraphs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:CD40:8AF0:91C:832C:1818:DFF8 (talk) 22:15, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm not well versed on WP's content guidelines and policies, but this article seems to be a showpiece of original thought. It is not a peer reviewed, credible, theory. I mean, it's from a blog that got some attention from a few news sources. I wouldn't consider these news sources as "verification" of Spoon Theory. Ms. Miserandino is not an expert in medicine nor psychology. This is more pop-culture psychology. I just don't see why this exists. 66.37.42.2 (talk) 21:08, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think that reliability or credibility are relevant terms with regard to this "theory". The word "theory" is used colloquially, informally.  I do think that the article subject is notable, as people with many diseases are using it.  --Hordaland (talk) 18:18, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The colloquial use of "theory" is a synonym for "hypothesis". This isn't even that, it's an analogy or metaphor. I'd say this were WP:FRINGE except that it's an unscientific re-interpretation of willpower being a limited resource which has been extensively studied source. Also "Spoon Theory" is partially incorrect. "... while healthy people have a "never-ending supply of spoons" and thus never need to worry about running out." The scientific sources agree that willpower is a limited resource common through human psychology. 66.37.42.2 (talk) 16:10, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Will-power isn't the only thing that requires using (up) one's spoons. There's fatigue.  There's pain.  Lack of energy.  It can be very physical.  --Hordaland (talk) 02:47, 15 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Whether this is a 'credible' theory, or whether it's 'correct', are not relevant to the question of whether we should have an article on it. The only relevant question is whether it's a notable concept, and I believe it probably is. I would add that, as Hordaland says, I don't think it's supposed to be a scientific hypothesis, but rather an explanatory tool for non-disabled people. Perhaps a name change to something like 'spoon analogy' or 'spoon metaphor' would help in making that clearer. Robofish (talk) 21:40, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. Such a name change would be fine, IMO, as long as there's a redirect from Spoon theory, as that is what people will search for.  Spoon "theory" would work too, but it looks strange.  :)  Hordaland (talk) 14:47, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * If it is commonly referred to as "Spoon theory" and that is what people are expected to search for, then that should probably be the title, per WP:COMMONNAME. --Mirokado (talk) 22:34, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. As it's currently under the scope of WikiProject Medicine, I think "Spoon Metaphor" with a redirect from "Spoon Theory" is most appropriate. It seems otherwise out-of-place that a WikiMed article proposed on a blog would carry the same weight as "Germ Theory" or "Sliding Filament Theory." 2601:583:C002:5A0C:646F:AFEF:C72E:DF8D (talk) 06:44, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME, all the sources use the phrase "spoon theory", changing the name to anything else would be WP:OR. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:24, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Endurance
If spoon theory just means someone has limited energy, why not simply apply known endurance training methods? Sure, if someone has chronically severely depleted energy - to the point that doing all of one's daily tasks gets problematic - it might be a while before results are seen, especially since there's little energy that can be devoted to such training.Winged Cat (talk) 06:20, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Also, is it fair to consider those who have trouble getting through the day without coffee or another source of caffeine to be under a form of this restriction, with caffeine artificially replenishing their spoons? If so, might this work for others with more limited spoons (possibly to temporarily gain enough daily capacity to engage in training, to eventually regain enough daily energy to handle the level of daily affairs one wishes to undertake)?Winged Cat (talk) 06:20, 1 July 2017 (UTC)


 * argues on the assumption "If spoon theory just means someone has limited energy". It doesn't. It's not, or not just, physical energy. Quoting from the article:
 * Spoons are widely discussed within autoimmune, disability, mental and other chronic illness online communities, as an emic descriptor.
 * Miserandino suggested the spoon theory can describe the effects of mental illnesses as well.
 * --Thnidu (talk) 00:48, 10 December 2018 (UTC)


 * misreads my earlier comment. I did not say "physical" energy.  "Mental energy" is a thing too.  Illness (mental or otherwise) is one of the things that can deplete mental energy as well as physical energy - and, likewise, there are known ways to train up mental endurance.
 * Many (but not all) of said methods train up mental and physical endurance at the same time, which can cause this sort of confusion. That a given method affects physical endurance does not by itself mean it does not also affect mental endurance.  This should not be read to say that all endurance training methods affect both types, only that there exist endurance training methods that affect both types.
 * Keeping that in mind, the rest of the comment should become clear. For instance, it takes mental energy to engage with such methods, which is problematic if one barely has enough mental energy for the demands of one's daily life (or, worse, if one typically does not have that much mental energy).  Likewise, coffee and similar stimulants being widely regarded as a way to regain mental energy, I wonder if this might in some cases (most notably, when the affected person is not already using such stimulants, but could use them) be useful as a temporary fix to gain enough mental energy to sort out the immediate problems lack of spoons are causing, and once those are handled, begin mental endurance training to permanently gain enough spoons per day to deal with life.  (The training would best be begun before one grows dependent on the stimulant, with an eye toward eventually no longer using the stimulant.  Alternately, could these methods be a solution for those who are already dependent on a stimulant and wish to end that dependency, but fear that just going cold turkey would lead to a low spoons situation?)
 * Winged Cat (talk) 18:56, 19 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks for clarifying. I didn't know about ways to train up mental endurance, so I read your comments as referring to physical endurance. Can you link to some resources? Or is there an article on the topic? --Thnidu (talk) 16:26, 20 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I would consider ego depletion to be an article about the lack of mental energy. Also, of course, see mental health - and especially note the "Physical Activity" section under "Modern Methods of Treatment"; that linkage is relevant to treating this article's facet, since said facet deals with a combined lack of mental and physical energy.  As to training it, https://www.google.com/search?q=training+mental+endurance brings up several potential resources; while I have not read them all to find which ones best suit Wikipedia's criteria, I believe https://www.webmd.com/fitness-exercise/features/mental-stamina#1 qualifies. Winged Cat (talk) 09:13, 21 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the references. --Thnidu (talk) 20:09, 23 December 2018 (UTC)


 * It might be very hard to train hard and grow a tail or a hand, that is unavailable. Basically this theory is about lack of energy, that for some reason has been lost, chopped off and therefor untrainable to the "normal" - even to the previous level.92.8.139.130 (talk) 01:35, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 September 2020 and 17 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): M.2.woolley.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:46, 18 January 2022 (UTC)