Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Beeblebrox (talk | contribs) at 18:08, 16 June 2024 (OneClickArchived ""trypophobic shapes"" to Talk:Trypophobia/Archive 6). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Misplaced Pages is not censored. Images or details contained within this article may be graphic or otherwise objectionable to some readers, to ensure a quality article and complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to Misplaced Pages's content disclaimer regarding potentially objectionable content and options for not seeing an image.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This article was nominated for deletion on 11 March 2009. The result of the discussion was delete.

This article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Psychology Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Medicine Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Cognitive science (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cognitive science, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Cognitive scienceWikipedia:WikiProject Cognitive scienceTemplate:WikiProject Cognitive scienceCognitive science

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

Lead Image Follow-up: Asking a researcher and other concerns

Perhaps we could ask a researcher on the subject to select an image which describes what a trypophobia image looks like but has the least chance of creating an adverse reaction. This would more holistically comply with WP:Shock, especially considering there is controversy surrounding the current image. My impression from some statements by users on on this page and the RFC is that there's some fascination with the sensation the picture causes in them. I believe that sensation may constitute some or much of the educational value described for that specific picture. If that's the case, I would counter by saying that the focus of educational value in an image should be understanding of the article's content, not imparting a feeling. Secondarily, I think the picture is merely an image featured prominently in one study and is not singularly descriptive of the condition. Otherwise, I would ask why this picture in particular is so important that it has to be the lead image. Also, I would say that "disgust," in reply to WhatamIdoing is also not a completely proper term, as disgust does not usually cause panic attacks or other extreme reactions such as vomiting. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 08:40, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

I've contact one psychologist about the above, and also asked them to review the page for comment. Will try others if no reply is made in a few days. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 14:45, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Extreme disgust certainly does cause extreme reactions, specifically and especially including vomiting. That fact is the basis for a whole category of non-lethal weapons. Evolutionary psychologists claim that this protects humans against infectious diseases. That is the meaning of the bit in the lead that says "researchers hypothesize that it is the result of a biological revulsion that associates trypophobic shapes with danger or disease". If it isn't clear that "biological revulsion" means "feelings of disgust", then we should probably re-write the lead to use simpler language. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:46, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, they call it disgust because there is no other name for it. Do other disgust reactions cause panic attacks from a singular stimuli? This isn't merely a feeling of disgust, but is an observed and unique condition.

The picture currently in the article is part of a series of photos taken by a long-time Misplaced Pages editor about the plants in the Adelaide Botanic Garden. If it has appeared in a journal article, then that may be evidence of the researchers taking it from Misplaced Pages, rather than the other way around. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:49, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

I'll have to find the study I'm talking about sometime, but I read a few studies on the condition, and there was a clear narrative that a picture of this or a similar kind of plant was used to induce the condition in a seminal study. That the picture was taken by someone doesn't tell us whether the picture or the study came first. To say that researchers are using Misplaced Pages as a basis for study is a jump in logic if you're basing that on the plant alone. And what relevance does that have for the discussion? I'm pretty sure the study in question was from 2008, but again, I'll need to find it. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 11:26, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

I've been thinking about your proposed concept for an image. I don't think it works. Look at it this way:

• Article: Some images produce intense feelings of disgust in some people.
• Image: But I've been carefully selected to not produce any of those feelings!

Showing an image that was chosen because it doesn't produce feelings is a poor way of illustrating that images can produce feelings. I think it would be misleading. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:12, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

IronMaidenRocks, the page says there's been very few studies. If a photo of a lotus seed pod "is not as important to the condition", then why did it, as you say, feature prominently in one study? Why was it said in older discussion it's frequently used to detect trypophobia? Why are trypophobia trolling photos usually of the pods (or, other times, tripe/cow stomach)? According to citations on the page, some non-trypophobics have also reacted strongly to seeing a lotus seed pod. So is it used to weed out true trypophobia? Can a photo that has "the least chance of creating an adverse reaction" be used to test for trypophobia since it'd catch a much smaller net? Is it the most educational? Acidsetback (talk) 22:09, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Why? Because this plant is effective at inducing the condition in people susceptible to it. Your illustration with "Image: But I've been carefully selected to not produce any of those feelings!" Is unhelpful as it doesn't clearly say what you mean. To me, this concern about the image being carefully selected to not cause trypophobia only reinforces my thinking that some users want to induce the trypophobia feeling in others. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 11:26, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

No, they want to illustrate in a visual medium the visual stimuli that is being discussed. It is significantly more clear than trying to explain through text. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:27, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Acidsetback implied with " because it doesn't produce feelings is a poor way of illustrating that images can produce feelings." that the goal was to induce feelings. A Misplaced Pages article doesn't need to cause feelings in readers; how it feels doesn't need to be communicated through in text. That seems like shock media to me, similar to the old "how did you feel when the shooting started?" question. Also, even though I've been accused of it several times myself, it's not accurate to homogenize user views to "what they want is..." --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 11:38, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

You said my thinking that some users want to induce the trypophobia feeling in others. I replied that they want a visual representation. Now you're saying it's not accurate to homogenize user views to "what they want is..." after having just done that.

There are a lot of images that don't cause a response in people with trypophobia, but none of those images would provide a visual explanation to the reader of what is being discussed. All the pictures of coyotes in the world won't provide the information that a single image of something may trigger a response in some people with trypophobia. We can have one image that explains the issue, or we could have hundreds of millions of pictures captioned "This isn't it" so eventually a reader can build a mental image of what might be the actual fear. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:49, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

There's a pretty clear distinction between saying I think some people are arguing this way so that I can argue against it, and telling someone not to argue a certain way because nobody thinks that way, which is how I interpreted your response. No, I'm not suggesting using a substitute image as a stand-in for something that would be descriptive of Trypophobia. I'm suggesting getting a recommendation from someone who has studied the condition for a photo which is less likely to create a strong reaction, while still communicating what a trypophobia photo looks like.

I'm taking a break from this discussion until I hear back from an expert. I've also contacted an administrator for what I believe is disruptive behavior on this page and surrounding pages. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 13:03, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

If you're referring to this, you're mistaken. They're not an admin. If you think there is an issue with disruptive editing you should probably take it to WP:ANI, but I suggest you don't. Last time uninvolved users were already mentioning a boomerang. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:23, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't understand why they let non-admin users close ANIs, considering the page is made for administrators. I'm looking for an administrator's opinion without being swarmed by non-admin users because of the nature of my request, like last time. If you think I've done something to be banned from Misplaced Pages after 14 years of service, because you think I was being rude to you, please open one yourself instead of threatening me. Thanks. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 13:58, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Try this user script. Makes it easier to identify user levels and contributions. It also shows the last time they edited. The admin you just picked last edited three months ago. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:04, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

No, I didn't say, "Showing an image that was chosen because it doesn't produce feelings is a poor way of illustrating that images can produce feelings. I think it would be misleading." That was a different user. Pay attention to user signatures.

As for disruption, bad-faith accusations on this page, on a noticeboard, and across multiple user talk pages, about the voters and additional users is disruptive. Challenging bad-faith accusations, as several users (myself included) have done, isn't being disruptive. It's not productive if it keeps going, and that can then be disruptive, but I'm hoping you're done with the bad-faith accusations. You've gotten explanations and advice from people about why the polling went the way it did, why the photo is used, and why new polling isn't likely to change anything. If you want to pursue this anyway, no one can stop you, but I think you should drop it. Acidsetback (talk) 22:17, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

About disgust or fear, disgust is apparently the primary emotion, but the information in the cite for it on the page reveals a large majority when using a "mostly disgust" category and reveals this number drops by much when using an "only disgust" category. The team that studied whether disgust or fear affects people more said "60.5% reported mostly disgust when confronted with clusters of holes, while 11.8% reported only disgust, 5.1% reported mostly fear, while 1% experienced only fear, and 21% experienced the same amount of fear and disgust." So maybe the new words on the page should say "Most affected people mainly experience disgust but not fear when they see trypophobic imagery. A minority of people experience the same level of fear and disgust, and a few express only disgust or fear." This is more accurate if the study holds up because most people experience fear with the disgust, but the disgust is much stronger. Acidsetback (talk) 22:18, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with disgust being used in the article, but was responding to WhatamIDoing who said, in reply to me, that the image isn't causing offense but disgust. I used the word offensive in reference to WP:Shock's wording. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 11:31, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't think it was said by anyone that the photo doesn't cause offense. Anyway, I commented on the disgust thing for accuracy. Acidsetback (talk) 22:24, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

As a bit of a compromise, wouldn't it make sense to at least move the current image to the "Causes" section rather than the lead? After all the image illustrates a cause of trypophobia, not trypophobia itself. Nosferattus (talk) 00:28, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. A few users have already objected that it would make little difference to move the picture because people who have the condition will still be triggered if they see it if they scroll down. I have a few objections to that, but my primary concern is that when you highlight the wikilink for Trypophobia in another article, or if it appears as a preview on a website or social media post, you're going to see the image even more clearly than it appears in the article. If we move the image out of the lead, if I understand how this works correctly, it won't appear in previews. Long story short, it will make a difference for some readers. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 18:11, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

I disagree with any attempt to move the image, because it's purpose in the lead is well-served. It helps users quickly understand the cause of the phobia, and is small enough that any editor not wishing to see it can avoid it if they like. Should we consider using a collapse or similar formatting trick? Those are typically not used in mainspace, but there can always be an exception. Wouldn't help mobile users, but would help the large fraction of users browsing on desktop. — Shibbolethink 13:30, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Can confirm that it does invoke feelings of disgust and is not small enough to ignore or avoid. Per my comments above, I'd be very keen to collapse this by default. User08342 (talk) 13:39, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

I have trypophobia and every time I direct someone to the page to show them what it is, I get goose bumps and nausia. Yuck! Then I need to turn to positive visual stimula (vids of puppies) to get rid of it. Would it help if not a photo was used but a drawing?

I see that this image is heavely discussed, that is a good thing, imho. Elzo Matala (talk) 10:21, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

The fact that this is still a matter of discussion is mind boggling to me. I definitely don't have/experience trypophobia. But, spending a lot of time over the last 3 1/2 years with someone who does? That's made one thing abundantly clear: it's real, and leaving the article as it stands is a disservice to people struggling with this. What's the fix? I don't know, but it's certainly not "leave things as they are, because (insert bureaucratic justification)" - and given how many people visit this page, vs how many participated in the RFC?

What would it take to sway people? Should I interview psychologists, psychiatrists, LCSWs etc, and make a video? I'm truly at a loss. --Overand (talk) 03:56, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

It's really not possible at this point. Some users had taken this as their final stand against "wokeness." Maybe in a few years they'll have come around to being more open-minded, and have the same opinion about this feature as they do the removed spider picture that was meant to induce arachnophobia on that page. For now, I would sooner try to convince sharks not to eat seal meat by swishing it around in a tank full of them. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 03:15, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Overblown Discussion

At the top of this page is the > decade-old notice:

"This article was nominated for deletion on 11 March 2009. The result of the discussion was delete."

So why is the article still here? Let alone the cataract of bilge dedicated to it? JohndanR (talk) 15:32, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

It was deleted in 2009 following a deletion discussion (Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Trypophobia). It was created again in 2012. 'Cataract of bilge' is quite a cool phrase, but you're going to have to unpack that a bit: what are you talking about? Girth Summit _(blether) 15:37, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages objectionable content
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• B-Class psychology articles
• Low-importance psychology articles
• WikiProject Psychology articles
• B-Class medicine articles
• Low-importance medicine articles
• All WikiProject Medicine pages