Talk:Subconscious

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The topic looks like it was writting by some paranoid hippie. I think it should be more neutral and mention that not only big bad antychrist coorporations use subliminal messaging.

assuming your reffering to this older revision [1], speaking of which beauty is probably the most exploited, humans are a too superficial species.

Contents 1 Deepest level? 2 I believe in it 3 Fit for deletion 4 Language used 5 Major revision 6 Something interesting.

[edit] Deepest level?

It appears to me that where it is used at all in serious psychology, subconscious does not denote the "deepest level of consciousness" (which is by the way a contradiction: how can a part of consciousness be unconscious?), but the liminal layer, the fuzzy region between the conscious and unconscious mind. This article repeats a very common misunderstanding: it confounds the subconscious with the unconscious. It should rather be deleted, or completely rewritten and properly sourced. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.162.28.240 (talk) 21:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] I believe in it

i believe in the power of the sub-conscious —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sugandh82 (talk • contribs) 07:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Fit for deletion

Whilst I am working away at the unconscious mind article I will cast an expert eye over this one. Frankly, if it isn't improved it ought to be deleted, as it currently tastes like fairy floss, looks like fairy floss.--Ziji 23:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Language used

the sentence structure of this article makes it really difficult to read and maybe just a rephrasing would help.

ultimtely it should be redone or incorporated into the unconscious mind article (though I'm unclear on how significant the difference between terms 'subconscious' and the 'unconscious mind' are). Rachelepoche 12:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that is the point as well, differentiating subconscious from unconscious is like trying to separate ink color from the water it's mixed in. Frankly, something as simple as that would do here and then merge the rest of what is useful into Consciousness rather than into Unconscious mind, which has a similar ink/water problem--Ziji 21:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Major revision

I have made major changes to this article in an effort to bring it up to Wiki standards. Here's what I've done, and why:

I removed the last two paragraphs from the introduction, the "Terminology" section, the "Application of the subconscious section", and the "Questions about the subconscious mind" section because they made factual statements without citing references. I've added a cited clause to the end of the first paragraph of the introduction and an introductory sentence to the "Modalities targeting the subconscious mind" section, which is a set of wikilinks that makes a reasonable subtopic. I revised the form of the existing external citations, and removed two terms from the "See also" since they are already in the "Modalities..." section.

This leaves the article with an introduction that is faily well-cited, the "Modalities...", "Notes", "See also" , "External links", and "Further reading" sections. The remaining article, while very short, is now factual and referenced. For these reasons, I have removed all four tags: cleanup, original research, un-cited and expert-help-requested. I considered leaving the expert tag, but decided against it because it is clear that the academic community uses the term unconscious mind, and that article is linked from this one and it is very factual and well documented.

I recommend that we no longer allow the addition of any statements made in a factual manner unless they are referenced with non-commercial citations. JD Lambert 17:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I like what you've done and it took some careful thought and editing on your part, which will save the article from getting lost in the ink of the unconscious article. I agree with your recommendation adn removal of all the tags. --Ziji 21:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

So it no longer looks like fairy floss?  :) I appreciate your comment, Ziji, I did spend a good bit of time on it, and it's the first time I've made a major revision to a Wiki article. JD Lambert 23:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Well done you! It's a bit scary the first time I know, but after a bit of good timing you sometimes even get to edit collaboratively with someone else interested in the article you've chosen 'randomly' who is looking at it at the same time. I will look forward to coinciding with your interests in that way because your work looks lean and clean.--Ziji 02:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Something interesting.

Holding a pendulum (doesn't matter the length or anything, could use your set of keys attached to a strap) set answers for something to movements of the pendulum (like up-down, side to side, clockwise, counter clockwise), set a movement for no answer. Ask the question and wait for the pendulum to swing for the answer by itself. For testing, you could throw a coin or dice without looking at it and try to find on which side it landed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.116.9.226 (talk) 18:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC)