This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Psychology of eating meat article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | Text and/or other creative content from this version of Carnism was copied or moved into Draft:Psychology of eating meat with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
![]() | This page was nominated for deletion on 28 December 2015. The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | A fact from Psychology of eating meat appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 19 February 2016 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
From a paper on meat an muscular christianity:
Eating meat has also long since been an activity through which men have defined their masculinity (Buerkle, 2009; Gal & Wilkie, 2010; Parasecoli, 2005; Parry, 2010; Potts, & Parry, 2010; Sobal, 2005; Stibbe, 2004) in contexts as diverse as American firemen (Deutsch, 2005), the Baltic States (Prättälä, et al., 2007), Finnish carpenters and engineers (Roos, Prättälä, & Koski, 2001) and India (Roy, 2002).
FourViolas ( talk) 01:41, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Most of the article's sources were added only to support whatever information they supported in the review article which made me aware of them. I've read all of their "discussion" or "introduction" sections, but so far have not fully mined most of them. I know there's lots of useful information sitting unused in many of them. There's gold in them thar links! FourViolas ( talk) 03:47, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Font-i-Furnols 2014 seems to be a more or less ideal—broad and deep, secondary—source for the consumer psychology perspective on meat. Might be a good idea to at least partially restructure that subsection based on her priorities and WEIGHT choices. FourViolas ( talk) 06:19, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Font is the meat quality program director for a Catalonian regional agricultural development organization, and has many degrees and publications. At a glance, well-cited and well-published; prominent but not necessarily preeminent in her field. In any case worth listening to for weight guidance. Guerrero is an active meat scientist too. FourViolas ( talk) 06:28, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Many thanks to Tokyogirl79 for their time and comments. The problem, if I understand, is a WP:SYNTHy "vibe", evidenced by red flags such as excessive "for example"s. I'll start a threaded discussion here to facilitate resolution of these concerns. FourViolas ( talk) 13:22, 29 August 2015 (UTC) repinging with apologies: Tokyogirl79, not Tryptofish 14:54, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't have time to address each of the six times I use the phrase, so I'll try to explain myself re: the first:
Studies in personality trait psychology have found that individuals' values and attitudes affect the frequency and comfort with which they eat meat. [1] For example, those who value power more highly tend to eat more meat, while those who prefer self-transcendence values tend to eat less. [1]
References
Here we have a primary research report, which also contains two dense pages of review and synthesis of available literature (the "Introduction" section). I used this as a poor-man's secondary source to give an overview, with synthesis, of the research on values/attitudes/beliefs in relation to meat. Wanting to be cautious because Hayley isn't an internationally renowned expert like Rozin, I created the understated first sentence. Then, the report states that one of its aims was "to model the values–attitude–behaviour connection to better understand cognitive predictors of MRD for each common meat type", so I considered its result ("Four value priorities were indirect predictors of self-reported frequency of meat consumption" et seq) to be a "for example" of the very broad class of results the article initially discussed ("values and attitudes affect the frequency and comfort with which people eat meat").
If this kind of reasoning—classifying particular results as examples of broader theories, per RS explanations—is inappropriate in general, let me know and I'll fix all of them. FourViolas ( talk) 13:22, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
The introduction section certainly does sound discursive, especially compared to the rest of the article. Placed early, it also sets the tone for the article.
The problem is that many sources do in fact include such a section, particularly the tertiary sources I referred to for organizational suggestions. See Wilson & Allen, paragraphs "As well as the social importance…" and "What motivates people…"; Rozin et al 2012, beginning of meat-specific section; [n 1] Rozin 2006; Beardsworth and Keil, with a whole chapter on this which is often cited by psychologists like Wilson & Allen, Grunert, and Bastian; and Rozin again—he's a leader in the field, per Loughnan etc., and his ideas have set the programme for decades of research. Secondary and primary sources, too, often begin with an introductory nod to the cultural, social, and historical imortance of meat: see Bastian Bratanova Ruby.
Overall, I think it would be an active and questionably NPOV decision to disregard these introductory components. FWIW, my own perspective on meat is not at all the one presented in the intro. FourViolas ( talk) 13:22, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
References
[Section copied from Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2015 August 31 by FourViolas ( talk) 01:58, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
It appears the draft I've written gives off SYNTHy "vibes", and reads like an essay or research paper. Per my reasoning on the talk page, I believe the specified problems are stylistic rather than substantial, but I'd love fresh eyes and evaluations either way. If you have spare time, you could look over some of my non-AfC submissions to check for similar problems: Graham technique, Hedareb people, Giordano Dance Chicago, Mary Cannon. Thanks! No need to {{ talkback}}, or to wear your usual kid newbie gloves. FourViolas ( talk) 03:16, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Dissociation
Individuals can also psychologically alter how much meat they perceive themselves to consume by dissociating the animal from the food product. According to Adams (1990), one way that individuals render animals absent from their consciousness is to change language about them as food products. Words like bacon, hamburger, and sirloin become substitutes for the animal flesh people consume, allowing omnivores to maintain the illusion that animals are not involved. As Bandura (1999) notes, such euphemistic labeling is often used to disguise objectionable activities.
Supporting this dissociation strategy, many consumers do not like to think that meat comes from a live animal (Mayfield et al., 2007), and this explains why the more meat resembles the actual animal, in terms of being red, bloody, and fatty, the more individuals are disgusted by it (Kubberod, Ueland, Tronstad, & Risvik, 2002). Pieces of meat that clearly remind consumers that they were from an animal (e.g., eyes, tongues, brains, etc.) are unwillingly handled by consumers (Kubberod et al., 2002). Explicit reminders of the animal origins of meat led shoppers to purchase less meat or prefer free range and organic meat (Hoogland et al., 2005).
Having stumbled across this draft article while disambiguating, I noticed the discussion on this very detailed article. My own POV is that of a male omniovore. Despite this, I find the article well-referenced (I have randomly check several of the cited peer-reviewed papers) and presenting logically coherent discussion that can be read as neutral. I agree that some of the truths might be uncomfortable to us omnivores (eg that others consider as less virtuous!), but the supports the text. In terms of quality, this well exceeds that for most newly-created pages, and I feel it would make a useful encyclopaedic contribution. Klbrain ( talk) 13:26, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Go for mainspace. Viriditas ( talk) 11:53, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
I've nominated it for Did You Know. I think it qualifies. Jonathunder ( talk) 00:34, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi all, per my DYK Review for this article, I want to clarify if this article is running afoul of MEDRS as it applies to psychology? Rather than secondary sources or literature reviews, it seems to be built largely on what MEDRS would consider unacceptable primary sources. Basically, until we have a broad overview to analyze the experiments being described in this article, we should avoid putting these experiments forward as consensus. That's WP:UNDUE, right? I don't want to be a rabble-rouser, but this seems pretty clear to me, the only question is, is there some reason we shouldn't hold a psychology article to the regular standards of MEDRS? --- Owlsmcgee ( talk) 05:52, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
biomedical information. It just happens to be discussing the mind, an entity which sometimes requires medical attention. Surely you don't think Political psychology, Psychology of religion, and Legal psychology may only be sourced to review papers from the last five years? FourViolas ( talk) 06:33, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
MEDRS definitely does not apply to social psychology. It applies to psychiatry. See the essay Wikipedia:Biomedical information. -- Sammy1339 ( talk) 14:38, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Society and cultureor
Beliefsabout meat, nothing about clinical diseases or treatments, and therefore not subject to MEDRS. I would say that's an accurate formalization of the reason I didn't limit myself to MEDRS-compliant sources. FourViolas ( talk) 15:14, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Well let's discuss it then. I was rather surprised myself to read a lot of these results, so I'm not hostile to the idea that their sources are questionable. Here they are, for ease of reference:
Which ones are problematic, and why? FourViolas ( talk) 04:02, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
I'm going to stop here to make sure people are receptive to my suggestions, and perhaps other editors can take the spirit of my concern and have a gander at the rest of this article and make some changes that address the tonal problems. I also want to say that this article is well-researched and fascinating. I'm just worrying that it is stirring up more controversy than it needs to be because of these distractions, when it could be read as a really great resource for social psychologists with an interest in the topic. I know it is frustrating to have your work critiqued (and I see I am not the first!) but I'd love to see this article hold up to scrutiny, since you've put all the pieces here. Hope this is taken in the spirit of assistance in which it was intended! --- Owlsmcgee ( talk) 07:52, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
I fail to see what reason this entry has for existence, other than to advance a polemic.It assumes a priori that there is something immoral or debased about meat consumption, & seeks to justify itself in psychological cant. Why not 'Psychology of drinking Soft Drinks'? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CF99:2080:598F:CCD2:76D8:626D ( talk) 00:36, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
I edited the following: people with "a right-wing authoritarian viewpoint, who value authority and conformity, are also likely to eat more meat" to "people self-identifying as greater meat eaters have greater right-wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation". 1. The implication in the source (meat-eater -> right-wing) was reversed in the previous article text. 2. The source does not define what it means by "right-wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation" (it cites another article) and it certainly does not identify it with valuing "authority and conformity". Wherever that identification is coming from should be sourced. Because the article is likely using these terms in a technical way, I quoted them directly. 3. I think it's fair to mention the study was based on self-identification as an omnivore, rather than a direct measure of meat consumption, as the previous text suggested. Snarfblaat ( talk) 01:35, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
This article fails to mention the viewpoint that, by consuming the life around you, you utilize it to further liberate not only itself but the food by using it as nourishment. If the Truth Project ( http://www.truthcontest.com/entries/the-present-universal-truth/) is to be believed, a meat eater aids surrounding life be it plant or animal, by consuming it, assimilating it, and using it as a part of itself to further the goal of spiritual liberation.
This view in which, you are conscious of other consciousness and see it as your duty to assimilate and uplift lower lifeforms to the state of humanity so that you( as a collective of parts acquired through consumption your whole life) may work as a united entity to reach true salvation; has been left out. I believe this viewpoint amongst others too, needs elaboration and mention within the article. It is in line with a hunter thanking its prey for the nourishment it provides. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.75.13.10 ( talk • contribs) 14:27, 9 April 2016
The idea that "you are what you eat", related to superstitions about sympathetic magic and common in many cultures, may create the perception that eating meat confers animal-like personality attributes. [1]
References
- ^ Nemeroff, Carol; Rozin, Paul (1989). ""You Are What You Eat": Applying the Demand‐Free "Impressions" Technique to an Unacknowledged Belief". Ethos. 17 (1). Wiley-Blackwell: 50–69. doi: 10.1525/eth.1989.17.1.02a00030.
{{ cite journal}}
:|access-date=
requires|url=
( help)
It's a good idea to cover hunting better. Here are two sources which might be useful in surveying the academic psychological consensus: Hollin 2015 and Wegner 1992 (not exactly scholarly, but a large compendium of research and a starting point). FourViolas ( talk) 21:54, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
After stepping away for a while for perspective, I've come to understand that Owlsmcgee, Snow Rise and SlimVirgin are right that I've overused primary sources here. With an eye towards an GA nom, I've been preparing a revision of the page by collecting, reading and annotating the WP:BESTSOURCES (secondary, recent, and published in significant books by academic presses or in journals with good impact factors) I could find:
Sources
|
---|
|
I recall that among the objections to the creation of this page was the concern that it was part of a plan to circumvent deletion or merge discussions, and ultimately delete worthwhile material from Carnism. This was never my intention (honest), but keeping strictly to the source standards above will require some material to be cut, as Snow observed. I wrote most of this material, but others contributed, mostly to the #Meat paradox section. I'd like to ask you all if preserving that material by spinning out that section into its own article, Meat paradox, and leaving a WP:SUMMARYSTYLE paragraph here, as Adam Cuerden wanted, would be an acceptable solution. Sammy1339, who wrote most of what I didn't of that section, already said this would be fine. FourViolas ( talk) 11:45, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Meat is one of the main reasons for the main causes of death (CAD, stroke, some forms of cancer) and its nutritions are - for us humans - completely suppliable by plants, fungis and so on. It is also one of the main reasons for the climate change and contributes significantly to the world hunger, as well as to the animal suffering and the financial burden on the healthcare system as well as on the industrial subsidies, since the energy conversion efficiency is significantly low. How is that important? ShalokShalom ( talk)
Children tend to show passion with other animals, some cultures refuse it completely to eat and kill animals and killing is in general something that distracts us by nature. Our whole body is focused on the procession of fruit based nutrition, there is no natural born killer instinct in us and we cant even hunt without tools. Plus, the reason why humans eat meat, is indeed a very unnatural one: Dr. Melanie Joy, Psychologist https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ao2GL3NAWQU ShalokShalom ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:43, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Taken to talk page to prevent continuous edits
While the study argues that vegetarians are considered more moral, this doesn't change my point I'd say. The first paragraph argues that meat-eating may have helped humans evolve moral systems by encouraging cooperation. The second paragraph argues that vegetarians are considered more moral. These are not in contradiction - it is entirely possible for meat-eating to encourage the evolution of moral psychology while arguing that vegetarianism is considered more moral (due to greater concern for suffering). The first paragraph essentially argues that meat-eating created principles for just distribution of material assets. This isn't contradicted by the second paragraph's argument that vegetarianism is considered more moral, because the first paragraph is making a factual statement about how morality evolved, which is a different thing. Increased morality doesn't mean that eating meat was (or is) more moral, it means that it helped facilitate moral judgment by encouraging cooperation and thus the just distribution of assets (morality). The morality of eating meat is another matter to what effect eating meat had on the development of human moral psychology. Thus the wording is unnecessary because it implies that meat-eating was once considered more moral than vegetarianism, yet this wasn't asserted to be the case. Indeed even the study cited for vegetarians being regarded as more moral observes this, stating "The sharing of meat resulted in the evolution of a moral system that nowadays sustains human fairness in general." The study itself was also about differing moral foundations and how they realte to dietary choice.
Hence I'd conclude it's unnecessary since there is no indication that vegetarianism was ever considered less virtuous in ages past, only that eating-meat contributed to the evolution of the psychology of fairness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sdio7 ( talk • contribs) 15:30, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
The sharing of meat resulted in the evolution of a moral system that nowadays sustains human fairness in general. In contrast, in today's modern society those who ban meat from their diet are seen as more virtuous compared to omnivores) and I thought it was a cute contrast. However, on reflection, it is a somewhat astonishing connection to make ( WP:LEAST), and not obviously a point of consensus in the field. We should probably either attribute the idea to De Backer ( WP:ATTRIBUTE) or just cut it. FourViolas ( talk) 17:30, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
User:Bondegezou please don't insist on using "in more recent times" - see WP:RELTIME. If you want to make some reference to time, please use concrete dates. Thanks. Jytdog ( talk) 21:19, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
@ FourViolas: Can you explain the encyclopedic value of including a link to a rather questionable political theory created and espoused by people with questionable expertise in the field? I am very familiar with WP:NOTCENSORED, but we don't go about including every obscure political theory simply because those theories exist. Alssa1 ( talk) 23:20, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Within the subfield of meat psychology, the concept of carnism as a dominant ideology structuring the psychology of meat-eating actually seems to be taken quite seriously by people with mainstream credentials (full professors of psychology at respected universities).
See Monteiro, Pfeiler, Patterson & Milburn 2017,
The Carnism Inventory: Measuring the ideology of eating animals for a sustained engagement, but
WP:ONEWAY's requirement that independent reliable sources connect the topics in a serious and prominent way
is also met by Dhont &
Hodson,
2014; Caviola, Everett & Faber
2018; and
Bilewicz et al.
2018, among others.
FourViolas (
talk)
14:33, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
Prepare yourself my friends, this is a doozie of a true wall of text; self-hatted from the outset as a matter of courtesy to other editors who have to load this page. Snow let's rap 10:04, 25 June 2018 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
I think there's a mistake in reference #8 : Richardson, N. J.; et al. (1994). "Consumer Perceptions of Meat" (PDF). Meat Science. 36: 57–65. doi:10.1016/0309-1740(94)90033-7 which links to this, but that article's title is Consumer attitudes to meat eating. The one in the reference resembles this article (UK consumer perceptions of meat) by the same author. I wonder which is the correct one. u v u l u m ( talk) 20:48, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Reference #2 : Rozin, Paul; Hormes, Julia M.; Faith, Myles S.; Wansink, Brian (October 2012). "Is Meat Male? A Quantitative Multimethod Framework to Establish Metaphoric Relationships". Journal of Consumer Research. 39 (3): 629–643. doi:10.1086/664970 is also cited in Sources/Research articles. I'm not sure about which one should prevail. Any help? Regards. u v u l u m ( talk) 16:40, 15 December 2021 (UTC). Same happens with ref. #1. u v u l u m ( talk) 16:49, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Psychology of eating meat article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | Text and/or other creative content from this version of Carnism was copied or moved into Draft:Psychology of eating meat with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
![]() | This page was nominated for deletion on 28 December 2015. The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | A fact from Psychology of eating meat appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 19 February 2016 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
From a paper on meat an muscular christianity:
Eating meat has also long since been an activity through which men have defined their masculinity (Buerkle, 2009; Gal & Wilkie, 2010; Parasecoli, 2005; Parry, 2010; Potts, & Parry, 2010; Sobal, 2005; Stibbe, 2004) in contexts as diverse as American firemen (Deutsch, 2005), the Baltic States (Prättälä, et al., 2007), Finnish carpenters and engineers (Roos, Prättälä, & Koski, 2001) and India (Roy, 2002).
FourViolas ( talk) 01:41, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Most of the article's sources were added only to support whatever information they supported in the review article which made me aware of them. I've read all of their "discussion" or "introduction" sections, but so far have not fully mined most of them. I know there's lots of useful information sitting unused in many of them. There's gold in them thar links! FourViolas ( talk) 03:47, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Font-i-Furnols 2014 seems to be a more or less ideal—broad and deep, secondary—source for the consumer psychology perspective on meat. Might be a good idea to at least partially restructure that subsection based on her priorities and WEIGHT choices. FourViolas ( talk) 06:19, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Font is the meat quality program director for a Catalonian regional agricultural development organization, and has many degrees and publications. At a glance, well-cited and well-published; prominent but not necessarily preeminent in her field. In any case worth listening to for weight guidance. Guerrero is an active meat scientist too. FourViolas ( talk) 06:28, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Many thanks to Tokyogirl79 for their time and comments. The problem, if I understand, is a WP:SYNTHy "vibe", evidenced by red flags such as excessive "for example"s. I'll start a threaded discussion here to facilitate resolution of these concerns. FourViolas ( talk) 13:22, 29 August 2015 (UTC) repinging with apologies: Tokyogirl79, not Tryptofish 14:54, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't have time to address each of the six times I use the phrase, so I'll try to explain myself re: the first:
Studies in personality trait psychology have found that individuals' values and attitudes affect the frequency and comfort with which they eat meat. [1] For example, those who value power more highly tend to eat more meat, while those who prefer self-transcendence values tend to eat less. [1]
References
Here we have a primary research report, which also contains two dense pages of review and synthesis of available literature (the "Introduction" section). I used this as a poor-man's secondary source to give an overview, with synthesis, of the research on values/attitudes/beliefs in relation to meat. Wanting to be cautious because Hayley isn't an internationally renowned expert like Rozin, I created the understated first sentence. Then, the report states that one of its aims was "to model the values–attitude–behaviour connection to better understand cognitive predictors of MRD for each common meat type", so I considered its result ("Four value priorities were indirect predictors of self-reported frequency of meat consumption" et seq) to be a "for example" of the very broad class of results the article initially discussed ("values and attitudes affect the frequency and comfort with which people eat meat").
If this kind of reasoning—classifying particular results as examples of broader theories, per RS explanations—is inappropriate in general, let me know and I'll fix all of them. FourViolas ( talk) 13:22, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
The introduction section certainly does sound discursive, especially compared to the rest of the article. Placed early, it also sets the tone for the article.
The problem is that many sources do in fact include such a section, particularly the tertiary sources I referred to for organizational suggestions. See Wilson & Allen, paragraphs "As well as the social importance…" and "What motivates people…"; Rozin et al 2012, beginning of meat-specific section; [n 1] Rozin 2006; Beardsworth and Keil, with a whole chapter on this which is often cited by psychologists like Wilson & Allen, Grunert, and Bastian; and Rozin again—he's a leader in the field, per Loughnan etc., and his ideas have set the programme for decades of research. Secondary and primary sources, too, often begin with an introductory nod to the cultural, social, and historical imortance of meat: see Bastian Bratanova Ruby.
Overall, I think it would be an active and questionably NPOV decision to disregard these introductory components. FWIW, my own perspective on meat is not at all the one presented in the intro. FourViolas ( talk) 13:22, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
References
[Section copied from Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2015 August 31 by FourViolas ( talk) 01:58, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
It appears the draft I've written gives off SYNTHy "vibes", and reads like an essay or research paper. Per my reasoning on the talk page, I believe the specified problems are stylistic rather than substantial, but I'd love fresh eyes and evaluations either way. If you have spare time, you could look over some of my non-AfC submissions to check for similar problems: Graham technique, Hedareb people, Giordano Dance Chicago, Mary Cannon. Thanks! No need to {{ talkback}}, or to wear your usual kid newbie gloves. FourViolas ( talk) 03:16, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Dissociation
Individuals can also psychologically alter how much meat they perceive themselves to consume by dissociating the animal from the food product. According to Adams (1990), one way that individuals render animals absent from their consciousness is to change language about them as food products. Words like bacon, hamburger, and sirloin become substitutes for the animal flesh people consume, allowing omnivores to maintain the illusion that animals are not involved. As Bandura (1999) notes, such euphemistic labeling is often used to disguise objectionable activities.
Supporting this dissociation strategy, many consumers do not like to think that meat comes from a live animal (Mayfield et al., 2007), and this explains why the more meat resembles the actual animal, in terms of being red, bloody, and fatty, the more individuals are disgusted by it (Kubberod, Ueland, Tronstad, & Risvik, 2002). Pieces of meat that clearly remind consumers that they were from an animal (e.g., eyes, tongues, brains, etc.) are unwillingly handled by consumers (Kubberod et al., 2002). Explicit reminders of the animal origins of meat led shoppers to purchase less meat or prefer free range and organic meat (Hoogland et al., 2005).
Having stumbled across this draft article while disambiguating, I noticed the discussion on this very detailed article. My own POV is that of a male omniovore. Despite this, I find the article well-referenced (I have randomly check several of the cited peer-reviewed papers) and presenting logically coherent discussion that can be read as neutral. I agree that some of the truths might be uncomfortable to us omnivores (eg that others consider as less virtuous!), but the supports the text. In terms of quality, this well exceeds that for most newly-created pages, and I feel it would make a useful encyclopaedic contribution. Klbrain ( talk) 13:26, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Go for mainspace. Viriditas ( talk) 11:53, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
I've nominated it for Did You Know. I think it qualifies. Jonathunder ( talk) 00:34, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi all, per my DYK Review for this article, I want to clarify if this article is running afoul of MEDRS as it applies to psychology? Rather than secondary sources or literature reviews, it seems to be built largely on what MEDRS would consider unacceptable primary sources. Basically, until we have a broad overview to analyze the experiments being described in this article, we should avoid putting these experiments forward as consensus. That's WP:UNDUE, right? I don't want to be a rabble-rouser, but this seems pretty clear to me, the only question is, is there some reason we shouldn't hold a psychology article to the regular standards of MEDRS? --- Owlsmcgee ( talk) 05:52, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
biomedical information. It just happens to be discussing the mind, an entity which sometimes requires medical attention. Surely you don't think Political psychology, Psychology of religion, and Legal psychology may only be sourced to review papers from the last five years? FourViolas ( talk) 06:33, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
MEDRS definitely does not apply to social psychology. It applies to psychiatry. See the essay Wikipedia:Biomedical information. -- Sammy1339 ( talk) 14:38, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Society and cultureor
Beliefsabout meat, nothing about clinical diseases or treatments, and therefore not subject to MEDRS. I would say that's an accurate formalization of the reason I didn't limit myself to MEDRS-compliant sources. FourViolas ( talk) 15:14, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Well let's discuss it then. I was rather surprised myself to read a lot of these results, so I'm not hostile to the idea that their sources are questionable. Here they are, for ease of reference:
Which ones are problematic, and why? FourViolas ( talk) 04:02, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
I'm going to stop here to make sure people are receptive to my suggestions, and perhaps other editors can take the spirit of my concern and have a gander at the rest of this article and make some changes that address the tonal problems. I also want to say that this article is well-researched and fascinating. I'm just worrying that it is stirring up more controversy than it needs to be because of these distractions, when it could be read as a really great resource for social psychologists with an interest in the topic. I know it is frustrating to have your work critiqued (and I see I am not the first!) but I'd love to see this article hold up to scrutiny, since you've put all the pieces here. Hope this is taken in the spirit of assistance in which it was intended! --- Owlsmcgee ( talk) 07:52, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
I fail to see what reason this entry has for existence, other than to advance a polemic.It assumes a priori that there is something immoral or debased about meat consumption, & seeks to justify itself in psychological cant. Why not 'Psychology of drinking Soft Drinks'? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CF99:2080:598F:CCD2:76D8:626D ( talk) 00:36, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
I edited the following: people with "a right-wing authoritarian viewpoint, who value authority and conformity, are also likely to eat more meat" to "people self-identifying as greater meat eaters have greater right-wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation". 1. The implication in the source (meat-eater -> right-wing) was reversed in the previous article text. 2. The source does not define what it means by "right-wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation" (it cites another article) and it certainly does not identify it with valuing "authority and conformity". Wherever that identification is coming from should be sourced. Because the article is likely using these terms in a technical way, I quoted them directly. 3. I think it's fair to mention the study was based on self-identification as an omnivore, rather than a direct measure of meat consumption, as the previous text suggested. Snarfblaat ( talk) 01:35, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
This article fails to mention the viewpoint that, by consuming the life around you, you utilize it to further liberate not only itself but the food by using it as nourishment. If the Truth Project ( http://www.truthcontest.com/entries/the-present-universal-truth/) is to be believed, a meat eater aids surrounding life be it plant or animal, by consuming it, assimilating it, and using it as a part of itself to further the goal of spiritual liberation.
This view in which, you are conscious of other consciousness and see it as your duty to assimilate and uplift lower lifeforms to the state of humanity so that you( as a collective of parts acquired through consumption your whole life) may work as a united entity to reach true salvation; has been left out. I believe this viewpoint amongst others too, needs elaboration and mention within the article. It is in line with a hunter thanking its prey for the nourishment it provides. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.75.13.10 ( talk • contribs) 14:27, 9 April 2016
The idea that "you are what you eat", related to superstitions about sympathetic magic and common in many cultures, may create the perception that eating meat confers animal-like personality attributes. [1]
References
- ^ Nemeroff, Carol; Rozin, Paul (1989). ""You Are What You Eat": Applying the Demand‐Free "Impressions" Technique to an Unacknowledged Belief". Ethos. 17 (1). Wiley-Blackwell: 50–69. doi: 10.1525/eth.1989.17.1.02a00030.
{{ cite journal}}
:|access-date=
requires|url=
( help)
It's a good idea to cover hunting better. Here are two sources which might be useful in surveying the academic psychological consensus: Hollin 2015 and Wegner 1992 (not exactly scholarly, but a large compendium of research and a starting point). FourViolas ( talk) 21:54, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
After stepping away for a while for perspective, I've come to understand that Owlsmcgee, Snow Rise and SlimVirgin are right that I've overused primary sources here. With an eye towards an GA nom, I've been preparing a revision of the page by collecting, reading and annotating the WP:BESTSOURCES (secondary, recent, and published in significant books by academic presses or in journals with good impact factors) I could find:
Sources
|
---|
|
I recall that among the objections to the creation of this page was the concern that it was part of a plan to circumvent deletion or merge discussions, and ultimately delete worthwhile material from Carnism. This was never my intention (honest), but keeping strictly to the source standards above will require some material to be cut, as Snow observed. I wrote most of this material, but others contributed, mostly to the #Meat paradox section. I'd like to ask you all if preserving that material by spinning out that section into its own article, Meat paradox, and leaving a WP:SUMMARYSTYLE paragraph here, as Adam Cuerden wanted, would be an acceptable solution. Sammy1339, who wrote most of what I didn't of that section, already said this would be fine. FourViolas ( talk) 11:45, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Meat is one of the main reasons for the main causes of death (CAD, stroke, some forms of cancer) and its nutritions are - for us humans - completely suppliable by plants, fungis and so on. It is also one of the main reasons for the climate change and contributes significantly to the world hunger, as well as to the animal suffering and the financial burden on the healthcare system as well as on the industrial subsidies, since the energy conversion efficiency is significantly low. How is that important? ShalokShalom ( talk)
Children tend to show passion with other animals, some cultures refuse it completely to eat and kill animals and killing is in general something that distracts us by nature. Our whole body is focused on the procession of fruit based nutrition, there is no natural born killer instinct in us and we cant even hunt without tools. Plus, the reason why humans eat meat, is indeed a very unnatural one: Dr. Melanie Joy, Psychologist https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ao2GL3NAWQU ShalokShalom ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:43, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Taken to talk page to prevent continuous edits
While the study argues that vegetarians are considered more moral, this doesn't change my point I'd say. The first paragraph argues that meat-eating may have helped humans evolve moral systems by encouraging cooperation. The second paragraph argues that vegetarians are considered more moral. These are not in contradiction - it is entirely possible for meat-eating to encourage the evolution of moral psychology while arguing that vegetarianism is considered more moral (due to greater concern for suffering). The first paragraph essentially argues that meat-eating created principles for just distribution of material assets. This isn't contradicted by the second paragraph's argument that vegetarianism is considered more moral, because the first paragraph is making a factual statement about how morality evolved, which is a different thing. Increased morality doesn't mean that eating meat was (or is) more moral, it means that it helped facilitate moral judgment by encouraging cooperation and thus the just distribution of assets (morality). The morality of eating meat is another matter to what effect eating meat had on the development of human moral psychology. Thus the wording is unnecessary because it implies that meat-eating was once considered more moral than vegetarianism, yet this wasn't asserted to be the case. Indeed even the study cited for vegetarians being regarded as more moral observes this, stating "The sharing of meat resulted in the evolution of a moral system that nowadays sustains human fairness in general." The study itself was also about differing moral foundations and how they realte to dietary choice.
Hence I'd conclude it's unnecessary since there is no indication that vegetarianism was ever considered less virtuous in ages past, only that eating-meat contributed to the evolution of the psychology of fairness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sdio7 ( talk • contribs) 15:30, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
The sharing of meat resulted in the evolution of a moral system that nowadays sustains human fairness in general. In contrast, in today's modern society those who ban meat from their diet are seen as more virtuous compared to omnivores) and I thought it was a cute contrast. However, on reflection, it is a somewhat astonishing connection to make ( WP:LEAST), and not obviously a point of consensus in the field. We should probably either attribute the idea to De Backer ( WP:ATTRIBUTE) or just cut it. FourViolas ( talk) 17:30, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
User:Bondegezou please don't insist on using "in more recent times" - see WP:RELTIME. If you want to make some reference to time, please use concrete dates. Thanks. Jytdog ( talk) 21:19, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
@ FourViolas: Can you explain the encyclopedic value of including a link to a rather questionable political theory created and espoused by people with questionable expertise in the field? I am very familiar with WP:NOTCENSORED, but we don't go about including every obscure political theory simply because those theories exist. Alssa1 ( talk) 23:20, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Within the subfield of meat psychology, the concept of carnism as a dominant ideology structuring the psychology of meat-eating actually seems to be taken quite seriously by people with mainstream credentials (full professors of psychology at respected universities).
See Monteiro, Pfeiler, Patterson & Milburn 2017,
The Carnism Inventory: Measuring the ideology of eating animals for a sustained engagement, but
WP:ONEWAY's requirement that independent reliable sources connect the topics in a serious and prominent way
is also met by Dhont &
Hodson,
2014; Caviola, Everett & Faber
2018; and
Bilewicz et al.
2018, among others.
FourViolas (
talk)
14:33, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
Prepare yourself my friends, this is a doozie of a true wall of text; self-hatted from the outset as a matter of courtesy to other editors who have to load this page. Snow let's rap 10:04, 25 June 2018 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
I think there's a mistake in reference #8 : Richardson, N. J.; et al. (1994). "Consumer Perceptions of Meat" (PDF). Meat Science. 36: 57–65. doi:10.1016/0309-1740(94)90033-7 which links to this, but that article's title is Consumer attitudes to meat eating. The one in the reference resembles this article (UK consumer perceptions of meat) by the same author. I wonder which is the correct one. u v u l u m ( talk) 20:48, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Reference #2 : Rozin, Paul; Hormes, Julia M.; Faith, Myles S.; Wansink, Brian (October 2012). "Is Meat Male? A Quantitative Multimethod Framework to Establish Metaphoric Relationships". Journal of Consumer Research. 39 (3): 629–643. doi:10.1086/664970 is also cited in Sources/Research articles. I'm not sure about which one should prevail. Any help? Regards. u v u l u m ( talk) 16:40, 15 December 2021 (UTC). Same happens with ref. #1. u v u l u m ( talk) 16:49, 15 December 2021 (UTC)