This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Ecstasy is MDMA. MDMA redirects there in wikipedia. Though things that aren't MDMA are sold as ecstasy, this is just false advertising. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Benna ( talk • contribs) 22:10, January 20, 2005 (UTC).
It would seem that MDMA causes tripping like peyote does on circuit 6-/+5. MDMA would it seems to me from reports i have read and subjectivly experienced in my own nervous system that MDMA would affect / effect circuits 4/5 and maybe 3 since it contains an Amine(maybe a monoamine). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.63.58.195 ( talk) 07:31, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Anyone know a few responses to Leary's model? I think this article could benefit from some de-bunking/info on adherents. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by The lesbian ( talk • contribs) 22:04, April 21, 2005 (UTC).
Psuedoscience involves more mental studies where as science usually merely deals with the physical world. In my opinion I think that expansion of the mind is much more important. Maybe you should start an ignorant bullshit wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.142.160.29 ( talk) 01:03, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
In fact, as wikipedia says with great clarity, "Pseudoscience is any body of knowledge, methodology, belief, or practice that claims to be scientific or is made to appear scientific, but does not adhere to the basic requirements of the scientific method". The object of study can be physical or mental, it is irrelevant (psychology is a science). The fact is, one can not blender his personal beliefs of past lives, magic, power of faith, UFOs, God, Santa Claus or whatever into any theory, without adequate proof or evidence that such things exist, and remain calling this study "scientific". The building blocks of a scientific theory are previous data extracted or observed in the natural world with a significant degree of precision and security, obtained with use of a replicable, testable and refutable method. "Past Lives" could very well exist, but using this concept without any good and plausible proof in a psychological theory sinks it into the vodoo-science realm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.248.254.100 ( talk) 16:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
I like Timothy Leary and his theories. They're quite fun to toy with even though the man himself was an attention whore on a permanent ego trip who was largely responsible for the illegality of such substances and the delegitimization of psychedelic research. Regardless of my own personal opinions regarding Leary, however, I think it is evident that there is some bias in this article when it makes sweeping statements such as "[The 8-Circuit Model] does have its own flaws but no other model seems to make it even close to this one due to various reasons... Leary deserves credit for bringing diverse elements such as the I-Ching, the Kabbalah, the Yoga, the Law of Octaves etc. into a framework that adheres to scientific and psychological principles."
I think many people would beg to differ with such a statement. No other models even come close? And does a belief in psychic powers truly conform to scientific principles? Although beliefs of such nature are common in occultism, buddhism, hinduism, sufism, etc. that does not make it scientific. Is it peer-reviewed? Is it even falsifiable? Is there empirical data? Or is it all anecdotal?
Psychology is a soft science, not a hard science. To assume that the scientific method and the standards of evidence that it traditionally requires are applicable in metaphysical space is illogical. It is not yet possible to gather accurate quantifiable data based on psychological processes like ideas, whether they be "hardware" or "software," to use Leary's language. Most peer review of any psychological discipline besides Behaviorism falls short of the standards of the physical sciences. That does not mean that unquantifiable experience is not a real experience. Studies of the psyche should be peer reviewed and challenged (Debunking is a word for objective facts and has no place in a soft science, in which we know relatively little). But always keep in mind that psychology is a science largely based on ANECDOTAL evidence. Freud, Jung, Adler, and other influential psychoanalysts strived to get psychology accepted alongside the physical sciences. What they found was personal experience, not data points. By comparing the experiences of similar and different people, theories emerged to better understand the way individual minds and the collective operate. There is anecdotal evidence available to develop your own opinion on whether the model is reliable in terms of soft science (that will require a visit to the pages dealing with theories like the collective unconscious). As a side note, to elevate it to the level of hard science, I think you'd probably have to try out Leary and Wilson's brain change techniques for yourself. Anyhow, throw in some criticism of Leary's ideas (with sources) as well as studies supporting his model (with sources). If anybody knows of any neurological brain imaging studies that relate to Leary's mapping of the brain itself, I'd love to see it. That seems to be where the soft and hard sciences converge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.61.249.99 ( talk) 06:18, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
First of all, it DOESN'T MATTER to Wikipedia whether or no this is a pseudoscience or science or whatsoever. Only POV-based editors care, because on a neutral ground, pseudosciences and sciences are written the same way. This is what makes neutral neutral.
Second, pseudoscience and science are not black-or-white. None of the studies I know of fits snugly into one or the other. Assuming black-or-white is a main cause of many edit wars, and we don't want that in a small article here.
Lastly, in-falsifiability does NOT lower possibility--at all why would it? The chance that a hammer suddenly appears out of nowhere and hits you in the head is the same as the chance an invisible hammer suddenly appears out of nowhere and hits you in the head. Scientists developed a grudge for these theories as it becomes frustrating to test them, not because they are less likely. Tqfmmuijtcbdlxbset ( talk) 23:40, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
{{outdent)) I'm marking this topic {{ stale}}. Please see the introductory notice at the topic of the talk page. Wikipedia talk pages are not for general discussion of the topic of the article, but for article improvement only, as Wikipedia is not a forum. This thread is no long making any suggestions for article improvment, but serving as a forum for topical and personal debate. Disputed wording in the article has been removed. Suggestion that criticism of the subject should be included has been noted, but no one has provided any such criticism as found in a reliable source. If there is any futher dispute as to the neutrality of the article, please edit the article to improve it, or raise a new, more specific and less inflammatory/combative topic here about the issue. If reliably source criticism from notable parties has been found, just add it to the article with proper citations. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 20:36, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
BTW, is my memory failing me, or did John C. Lilly have some involvement with this model, as well as Leary? Mark Grant 23:17, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
The template at the top of the page should be removed; the article accurately describes Leary's theory without signs of bias, possible inaccuracies and bias in the theory itself are immaterial to an article describing the theory. Information on the reception of the theory would, however, be a good addition. 66.196.21.91 03:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm an intelligent open minded person, this article portrays unproven pseudo science and supernaturalism. Therefore it should be tagged as factually incorrect, or redefined as a religion and not science. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.69.34.136 ( talk) 21:03, April 29, 2007 (UTC)
Autimatically saying that because our simple minds cannot fully understand a concept can be a rash decision. There are many things that are simply above us, and just because we can't prove or disprove it, doesn't mean it can't be true. I'm not saying this model is factually true, just try to have an open mind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.142.160.29 ( talk) 01:11, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Could we just put in a section detailing the experimental evidence for this model (is it none?) or perhaps the biomedical foundations of the claim that our brains transcend time and space to interact with higher beings (is it that they don't?). The most simple assertion that Leary borrowed from and embellished on a random idea with no specific reason other than he was tripping pretty hard and it really seemed to click at the time? Dubious antics like this set back real neurologic and pharmacologic research by two generations. Thanks wikipedians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.188.144.35 ( talk) 16:25, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Scientific method requires quantitative measurements and reproduction of results and proof. Pseudoscience hokum relies on using spiritual words and metaphysical ponderings and theories that will never be proven... never mind the fact that there aren't any experimental models designed to prove anything. Also, this article asserts that humans require such heavy reliance on controlled substances that it reads like an advertisement for the local junkie shop that's the sole-source mega-market for the yearly Christmas rave... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 20:41, November 21, 2009 (UTC) ( talk) 67.249.57.112
We all get that there is no "widespread scientific acceptance" of the 8-circuit model of consciousness. There is also no widespread scientific acceptance of phlogiston, in fact there is widespread agreement that it is a ridiculous outdated theory. Nevertheless, phlogiston deserves a wikipedia article. the 8-circuit model has been influential on a number of occult religions and fringe if not amateur psychologists. Thus, it deserves an article whether it is true, false, useful or inept. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.56.112.48 ( talk) 23:38, 14 August 2010 (UTC) -- 71.56.112.48 ( talk) 23:41, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm marking this topic {{ resolved}} because it is a rehash of all the other pro/con opinion-based argument about how good or bad Leary's model is. Wikipedia is not a web-board for topical debates. The purpose of talk pages is article improvement. As to the suggestion that WP shouldn't even have an article about this, that too has already been addressed here (and in Wikipedia policy and practice more broadly). There is no actual relevant argument here. Wikipedia articles present verifiable information from reliable sources about notable subjects (including controversial ideas), and does not exist to proclaim value judgements on the veracity of the subjects or their claims. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 20:36, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
First off, how can LSD be associated with a higher circuit of consciousness than peyote and psilocybin? All three psychedelics produce very similar effects.
Secondly, how can MDMA be associated with circuit 4 when circuit 4 is supposedly the conservative backlash to the counterculture? MDMA users would not find hedonist tantric cannabis users of circuit 5 as people they would go against.......in fact MDMA seems to go more with circuit 5. MDMA is about breaking certain social taboos, not establishing absolute socio-sexual moral standards. Zachorious 12:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
I have marked this article as describing a pseudoscientific theory. The theory clearly matches the criteria of pseudoscience: It is not based on verifiable empirical evidence, it references paranormal or supernatural elements which cannot be explained by currently accepted scientific theories, and it contradicts in some ways currently scientific theories (such as the theory of natural selection). Calling the model pseudoscience is not the same as calling it false -- it may be true, but it is does not qualify as a scientific theory. Randall Nortman ( talk) 13:45, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Dr. Timothy Leary, Ph.D., was, to quote from the Wikipedia entry about him, "an Assistant Professor at Berkeley (1950-1955), a director of psychiatric research at the Kaiser Family Foundation (1955-1958), and a lecturer in psychology at Harvard University (1959-1963)." His interpersonal circumplex model was once one of the most widely used psychological diagnostic tools, and is the basis for various standard models today. His application of Game Theory in psychology was groundbreaking in the 50s. The 8-Circuit Model of the Brain is based on very elementary Freudian concepts, most of which form the basis of psychology and psychiatry, and are accepted and/or integrated widely in these sciences. You seem to be missing the point entirely: the 8-Circuit Model of the brain, while purporting to explain consciousness, is in actuality a graduated therapy model that is as "pseudoscientific" as 12-step programs, group therapy, gestalt, etc. The Robert Anton Wilson book Prometheus Rising is, in fact, a self-help book using this therapy system, which is also in use by other psychotherapists around the world. So the fact that Leary uses language and concepts that stray from hard science does not make this "pseudoscience" any more than any other concept promoted by popular psychologists. If you insist on tagging this as "pseudoscience," you might as well hit every Jungian concept on Wikipedia with the same tag. Good psychologists use models of therapy that their patients can understand and use as tools. Regardless of who supports and promotes Dr. Leary's theory, it is best understood as a psychological tool rather than a philosophy. Hipsterlady ( talk) 13:29, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
The subject of this article is clearly notable, but as others have mentioned on this page, it could clearly use some balancing criticisms. I tried to add some, but my edits were undone by another editor. I agree that my approach was not ideal. I tried searching only for published criticisms of the theory and found none, only supportive new-age websites. I suspect this is largely because the theory was originally published pre-Internet, and so any criticisms were likely also published during that time, and nobody has bothered debunking the theory since then. It seems important to me that Wikipedia not present information like this without some sort of indication that the theory is well outside of mainstream science. There used to be some statements along those lines in the article which can be found if you dig through the history, but all of them have been removed over time, and no critical statements remain. I am soliciting suggestions on how to handle this properly. -- Randall Nortman ( talk) 20:12, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
I didn't read this section before commenting above, under the heading of "Pseudoscience." I urge people to read my argument. I don't think it is necessary to say that this theory was never accepted by the mainstream scientific community," as it was never presented as a model of consciousness to the scientific community in the first place. It was developed during Dr. Leary's post-Harvard, LSD-fame phase of the 1970s, and was designed specifically as a therapy model using language that spoke to his new constituency, the segment of youth counterculture that embraced Eastern concepts and psychedelics. It merged the very structured scientific approach he took to psychological research in the 50s and 60s with hippified language and Eastern practices (such as varieties of yoga and meditation, which have been proven by neurologists to induce changes in brain function.) What I think needs to be done with this article is that it needs to be presented as a psychological therapy tool as opposed to a scientific model of consciousness. Hipsterlady ( talk) 13:44, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Alcoholics Anonymous is widely regarded as one of the most effective therapy programs in the world, and central to its model is the concept of "God." While there is no specific dogma regarding who or what "God" is, the concept of "God," along with prayer, is very rigidly pushed within their therapy model. Does this mean that the AA therapy model is "fringe science?" Are the thousands of AA leaders the world over "lying" to the people they are helping by mentioning "God?" Psychology in theory and practice is not a hard science, and many therapy models are based on what works, or what may work in theory, and this includes integrating non-scientific concepts within various therapies. The problem with this article is that the 8-Circuit Model has been written and presented as a scientific model of consciousness, when it is in actuality an extension of Leary's earlier therapy work, with a heavier emphasis on Jungian concepts, framed within a new language. As a therapy model, it is as allegorical as anything presented by Jung, and deliberately structures itself to fit in with multiple models of traditional healing and self-development borrowed from various cultures (the Hindu system of chakras, for example.) In debating this with you I can't help but see the irony: one of the primary purposes of this therapy, as elucidated upon by Wilson, is to encourage people to break from dogma and rigid thinking by taking what is effectively an open-ended agnostic approach to viewing various concepts in the world, which means temporarily adopting and shortly thereafter discarding various belief systems as the primary way to bring about a greater understanding of oneself. What is needed in this article is a clarification about what the 8-Circuit Model is, along the lines of what I have described, rather than sweeping it into the dustbin of "fringe science." Again, if you insist on tagging this with such a label, I suggest you take this fight to every Jungian page in the Wiki universe, because I see little difference between the methodology of Jung presenting therapy through allegory, and Leary/Wilson doing the same. Hipsterlady ( talk) 15:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
[No further comments were posted to this RfC.]
[No threads were posted in 2008 at all.]
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Ecstasy is MDMA. MDMA redirects there in wikipedia. Though things that aren't MDMA are sold as ecstasy, this is just false advertising. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Benna ( talk • contribs) 22:10, January 20, 2005 (UTC).
It would seem that MDMA causes tripping like peyote does on circuit 6-/+5. MDMA would it seems to me from reports i have read and subjectivly experienced in my own nervous system that MDMA would affect / effect circuits 4/5 and maybe 3 since it contains an Amine(maybe a monoamine). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.63.58.195 ( talk) 07:31, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Anyone know a few responses to Leary's model? I think this article could benefit from some de-bunking/info on adherents. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by The lesbian ( talk • contribs) 22:04, April 21, 2005 (UTC).
Psuedoscience involves more mental studies where as science usually merely deals with the physical world. In my opinion I think that expansion of the mind is much more important. Maybe you should start an ignorant bullshit wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.142.160.29 ( talk) 01:03, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
In fact, as wikipedia says with great clarity, "Pseudoscience is any body of knowledge, methodology, belief, or practice that claims to be scientific or is made to appear scientific, but does not adhere to the basic requirements of the scientific method". The object of study can be physical or mental, it is irrelevant (psychology is a science). The fact is, one can not blender his personal beliefs of past lives, magic, power of faith, UFOs, God, Santa Claus or whatever into any theory, without adequate proof or evidence that such things exist, and remain calling this study "scientific". The building blocks of a scientific theory are previous data extracted or observed in the natural world with a significant degree of precision and security, obtained with use of a replicable, testable and refutable method. "Past Lives" could very well exist, but using this concept without any good and plausible proof in a psychological theory sinks it into the vodoo-science realm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.248.254.100 ( talk) 16:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
I like Timothy Leary and his theories. They're quite fun to toy with even though the man himself was an attention whore on a permanent ego trip who was largely responsible for the illegality of such substances and the delegitimization of psychedelic research. Regardless of my own personal opinions regarding Leary, however, I think it is evident that there is some bias in this article when it makes sweeping statements such as "[The 8-Circuit Model] does have its own flaws but no other model seems to make it even close to this one due to various reasons... Leary deserves credit for bringing diverse elements such as the I-Ching, the Kabbalah, the Yoga, the Law of Octaves etc. into a framework that adheres to scientific and psychological principles."
I think many people would beg to differ with such a statement. No other models even come close? And does a belief in psychic powers truly conform to scientific principles? Although beliefs of such nature are common in occultism, buddhism, hinduism, sufism, etc. that does not make it scientific. Is it peer-reviewed? Is it even falsifiable? Is there empirical data? Or is it all anecdotal?
Psychology is a soft science, not a hard science. To assume that the scientific method and the standards of evidence that it traditionally requires are applicable in metaphysical space is illogical. It is not yet possible to gather accurate quantifiable data based on psychological processes like ideas, whether they be "hardware" or "software," to use Leary's language. Most peer review of any psychological discipline besides Behaviorism falls short of the standards of the physical sciences. That does not mean that unquantifiable experience is not a real experience. Studies of the psyche should be peer reviewed and challenged (Debunking is a word for objective facts and has no place in a soft science, in which we know relatively little). But always keep in mind that psychology is a science largely based on ANECDOTAL evidence. Freud, Jung, Adler, and other influential psychoanalysts strived to get psychology accepted alongside the physical sciences. What they found was personal experience, not data points. By comparing the experiences of similar and different people, theories emerged to better understand the way individual minds and the collective operate. There is anecdotal evidence available to develop your own opinion on whether the model is reliable in terms of soft science (that will require a visit to the pages dealing with theories like the collective unconscious). As a side note, to elevate it to the level of hard science, I think you'd probably have to try out Leary and Wilson's brain change techniques for yourself. Anyhow, throw in some criticism of Leary's ideas (with sources) as well as studies supporting his model (with sources). If anybody knows of any neurological brain imaging studies that relate to Leary's mapping of the brain itself, I'd love to see it. That seems to be where the soft and hard sciences converge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.61.249.99 ( talk) 06:18, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
First of all, it DOESN'T MATTER to Wikipedia whether or no this is a pseudoscience or science or whatsoever. Only POV-based editors care, because on a neutral ground, pseudosciences and sciences are written the same way. This is what makes neutral neutral.
Second, pseudoscience and science are not black-or-white. None of the studies I know of fits snugly into one or the other. Assuming black-or-white is a main cause of many edit wars, and we don't want that in a small article here.
Lastly, in-falsifiability does NOT lower possibility--at all why would it? The chance that a hammer suddenly appears out of nowhere and hits you in the head is the same as the chance an invisible hammer suddenly appears out of nowhere and hits you in the head. Scientists developed a grudge for these theories as it becomes frustrating to test them, not because they are less likely. Tqfmmuijtcbdlxbset ( talk) 23:40, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
{{outdent)) I'm marking this topic {{ stale}}. Please see the introductory notice at the topic of the talk page. Wikipedia talk pages are not for general discussion of the topic of the article, but for article improvement only, as Wikipedia is not a forum. This thread is no long making any suggestions for article improvment, but serving as a forum for topical and personal debate. Disputed wording in the article has been removed. Suggestion that criticism of the subject should be included has been noted, but no one has provided any such criticism as found in a reliable source. If there is any futher dispute as to the neutrality of the article, please edit the article to improve it, or raise a new, more specific and less inflammatory/combative topic here about the issue. If reliably source criticism from notable parties has been found, just add it to the article with proper citations. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 20:36, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
BTW, is my memory failing me, or did John C. Lilly have some involvement with this model, as well as Leary? Mark Grant 23:17, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
The template at the top of the page should be removed; the article accurately describes Leary's theory without signs of bias, possible inaccuracies and bias in the theory itself are immaterial to an article describing the theory. Information on the reception of the theory would, however, be a good addition. 66.196.21.91 03:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm an intelligent open minded person, this article portrays unproven pseudo science and supernaturalism. Therefore it should be tagged as factually incorrect, or redefined as a religion and not science. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.69.34.136 ( talk) 21:03, April 29, 2007 (UTC)
Autimatically saying that because our simple minds cannot fully understand a concept can be a rash decision. There are many things that are simply above us, and just because we can't prove or disprove it, doesn't mean it can't be true. I'm not saying this model is factually true, just try to have an open mind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.142.160.29 ( talk) 01:11, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Could we just put in a section detailing the experimental evidence for this model (is it none?) or perhaps the biomedical foundations of the claim that our brains transcend time and space to interact with higher beings (is it that they don't?). The most simple assertion that Leary borrowed from and embellished on a random idea with no specific reason other than he was tripping pretty hard and it really seemed to click at the time? Dubious antics like this set back real neurologic and pharmacologic research by two generations. Thanks wikipedians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.188.144.35 ( talk) 16:25, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Scientific method requires quantitative measurements and reproduction of results and proof. Pseudoscience hokum relies on using spiritual words and metaphysical ponderings and theories that will never be proven... never mind the fact that there aren't any experimental models designed to prove anything. Also, this article asserts that humans require such heavy reliance on controlled substances that it reads like an advertisement for the local junkie shop that's the sole-source mega-market for the yearly Christmas rave... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 20:41, November 21, 2009 (UTC) ( talk) 67.249.57.112
We all get that there is no "widespread scientific acceptance" of the 8-circuit model of consciousness. There is also no widespread scientific acceptance of phlogiston, in fact there is widespread agreement that it is a ridiculous outdated theory. Nevertheless, phlogiston deserves a wikipedia article. the 8-circuit model has been influential on a number of occult religions and fringe if not amateur psychologists. Thus, it deserves an article whether it is true, false, useful or inept. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.56.112.48 ( talk) 23:38, 14 August 2010 (UTC) -- 71.56.112.48 ( talk) 23:41, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm marking this topic {{ resolved}} because it is a rehash of all the other pro/con opinion-based argument about how good or bad Leary's model is. Wikipedia is not a web-board for topical debates. The purpose of talk pages is article improvement. As to the suggestion that WP shouldn't even have an article about this, that too has already been addressed here (and in Wikipedia policy and practice more broadly). There is no actual relevant argument here. Wikipedia articles present verifiable information from reliable sources about notable subjects (including controversial ideas), and does not exist to proclaim value judgements on the veracity of the subjects or their claims. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 20:36, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
First off, how can LSD be associated with a higher circuit of consciousness than peyote and psilocybin? All three psychedelics produce very similar effects.
Secondly, how can MDMA be associated with circuit 4 when circuit 4 is supposedly the conservative backlash to the counterculture? MDMA users would not find hedonist tantric cannabis users of circuit 5 as people they would go against.......in fact MDMA seems to go more with circuit 5. MDMA is about breaking certain social taboos, not establishing absolute socio-sexual moral standards. Zachorious 12:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
I have marked this article as describing a pseudoscientific theory. The theory clearly matches the criteria of pseudoscience: It is not based on verifiable empirical evidence, it references paranormal or supernatural elements which cannot be explained by currently accepted scientific theories, and it contradicts in some ways currently scientific theories (such as the theory of natural selection). Calling the model pseudoscience is not the same as calling it false -- it may be true, but it is does not qualify as a scientific theory. Randall Nortman ( talk) 13:45, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Dr. Timothy Leary, Ph.D., was, to quote from the Wikipedia entry about him, "an Assistant Professor at Berkeley (1950-1955), a director of psychiatric research at the Kaiser Family Foundation (1955-1958), and a lecturer in psychology at Harvard University (1959-1963)." His interpersonal circumplex model was once one of the most widely used psychological diagnostic tools, and is the basis for various standard models today. His application of Game Theory in psychology was groundbreaking in the 50s. The 8-Circuit Model of the Brain is based on very elementary Freudian concepts, most of which form the basis of psychology and psychiatry, and are accepted and/or integrated widely in these sciences. You seem to be missing the point entirely: the 8-Circuit Model of the brain, while purporting to explain consciousness, is in actuality a graduated therapy model that is as "pseudoscientific" as 12-step programs, group therapy, gestalt, etc. The Robert Anton Wilson book Prometheus Rising is, in fact, a self-help book using this therapy system, which is also in use by other psychotherapists around the world. So the fact that Leary uses language and concepts that stray from hard science does not make this "pseudoscience" any more than any other concept promoted by popular psychologists. If you insist on tagging this as "pseudoscience," you might as well hit every Jungian concept on Wikipedia with the same tag. Good psychologists use models of therapy that their patients can understand and use as tools. Regardless of who supports and promotes Dr. Leary's theory, it is best understood as a psychological tool rather than a philosophy. Hipsterlady ( talk) 13:29, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
The subject of this article is clearly notable, but as others have mentioned on this page, it could clearly use some balancing criticisms. I tried to add some, but my edits were undone by another editor. I agree that my approach was not ideal. I tried searching only for published criticisms of the theory and found none, only supportive new-age websites. I suspect this is largely because the theory was originally published pre-Internet, and so any criticisms were likely also published during that time, and nobody has bothered debunking the theory since then. It seems important to me that Wikipedia not present information like this without some sort of indication that the theory is well outside of mainstream science. There used to be some statements along those lines in the article which can be found if you dig through the history, but all of them have been removed over time, and no critical statements remain. I am soliciting suggestions on how to handle this properly. -- Randall Nortman ( talk) 20:12, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
I didn't read this section before commenting above, under the heading of "Pseudoscience." I urge people to read my argument. I don't think it is necessary to say that this theory was never accepted by the mainstream scientific community," as it was never presented as a model of consciousness to the scientific community in the first place. It was developed during Dr. Leary's post-Harvard, LSD-fame phase of the 1970s, and was designed specifically as a therapy model using language that spoke to his new constituency, the segment of youth counterculture that embraced Eastern concepts and psychedelics. It merged the very structured scientific approach he took to psychological research in the 50s and 60s with hippified language and Eastern practices (such as varieties of yoga and meditation, which have been proven by neurologists to induce changes in brain function.) What I think needs to be done with this article is that it needs to be presented as a psychological therapy tool as opposed to a scientific model of consciousness. Hipsterlady ( talk) 13:44, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Alcoholics Anonymous is widely regarded as one of the most effective therapy programs in the world, and central to its model is the concept of "God." While there is no specific dogma regarding who or what "God" is, the concept of "God," along with prayer, is very rigidly pushed within their therapy model. Does this mean that the AA therapy model is "fringe science?" Are the thousands of AA leaders the world over "lying" to the people they are helping by mentioning "God?" Psychology in theory and practice is not a hard science, and many therapy models are based on what works, or what may work in theory, and this includes integrating non-scientific concepts within various therapies. The problem with this article is that the 8-Circuit Model has been written and presented as a scientific model of consciousness, when it is in actuality an extension of Leary's earlier therapy work, with a heavier emphasis on Jungian concepts, framed within a new language. As a therapy model, it is as allegorical as anything presented by Jung, and deliberately structures itself to fit in with multiple models of traditional healing and self-development borrowed from various cultures (the Hindu system of chakras, for example.) In debating this with you I can't help but see the irony: one of the primary purposes of this therapy, as elucidated upon by Wilson, is to encourage people to break from dogma and rigid thinking by taking what is effectively an open-ended agnostic approach to viewing various concepts in the world, which means temporarily adopting and shortly thereafter discarding various belief systems as the primary way to bring about a greater understanding of oneself. What is needed in this article is a clarification about what the 8-Circuit Model is, along the lines of what I have described, rather than sweeping it into the dustbin of "fringe science." Again, if you insist on tagging this with such a label, I suggest you take this fight to every Jungian page in the Wiki universe, because I see little difference between the methodology of Jung presenting therapy through allegory, and Leary/Wilson doing the same. Hipsterlady ( talk) 15:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
[No further comments were posted to this RfC.]
[No threads were posted in 2008 at all.]