Talk:Reality shifting

Comments left by AfC reviewers

• Comment: Very good start, better than almost all of my other declines. But there's a handful of signs of AI generation, but more importantly, the writing style seems to be closer to that of an academic paper than that of a Wikipedia article. "One article published in 2023"- published where? By whom? But generally speaking, content that is uncontroversial doesn't need a source declaration like this at all, only a citation. guninvalid (talk) 08:44, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

About the phenomenon

As someone who has researched this community extensively, I want to make you aware of a few risks for editors monitoring this article.

The Youtube "subliminal community" has a documented history of trying to legitimize its own beliefs using borrowed scientific and psychological terminology. Terms like 'neuroplasticity,' 'psychoacoustics,' 'CIA Gateway Process', the 'multiverse,' and 'quantum mechanics' are regularly misappropriated to make impossible claims sound credible. Per WP:FRINGE, editors should be cautious of any additions that present these misappropriations neutrally or as legitimate debate, since doing so would misrepresent the actual scientific consensus.

The respawning section in particular needs careful monitoring. The current article treats it somewhat in line with psychology, but the real-world context is much darker. The so-called "Underground Subliminal Community" (UGSC) distributes videos on YouTube for supossedly inducing "SCA (Sudden Cardiac Arrest)" as 'shifting methods,' which, while an audio on its own cannot cause a heart attack, is suicidal ideation. Sanitizing this into vague 'escapism concerns' understates what is basically instructional self-harm content targeting minors.

The maladaptive daydreaming connection is also currently absent from the article despite being well-documented in the professional research on this community, and its absence creates a gap that could be exploited to make the phenomenon seem more "real" than it actually is. Miiversal (talk) 11:16, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

For editors who want to get up to speed on the specific terminology this community uses and how it misappropriates scientific concepts, RationalWiki has a fairly detailed breakdown of the glossary and the pseudoscientific mechanisms claimed, not as a citation for the article, just as useful background reading for understanding what you're dealing with when reviewing new edits.

• https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Subliminal_audios
• https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Reality_shifting

Miiversal (talk) 11:19, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm gonna go ahead and add the word "pseudoscientific" to describe the practice. This is justified because the community makes unfalsifiable claims, misappropriates scientific terminology to appear credible, and its proponents dismiss negative results by blaming the user rather than the method.

This is worth addressing because even though the article is skeptical in tone, reads more like a 'we just don't know enough yet' disclaimer than a statement that the claims have no scientific basis. Other Wikipedia articles on similar phenomena like crystal healing use the term directly, and consistency would suggest this article should too. Miiversal (talk) 11:25, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback and warnings. I really appreciate them. I'll find better phrasing for "regarded as harmless."

I do have some things to discuss further. First, I have not found good documentation of an objective link between maladaptive daydreaming and reality shifting. Somer et al. heavily compares the two and its results could be said to propose a link, but I don't see any definitive claims of a link being accepted as fact. I went through the history and talk page of Maladaptive daydreaming when I first went to recreate the article, and the connection between maladaptive daydreaming and reality shifting has been disputed, even after the re-phrasing and inclusion of the Somer article. Even the current phrasing of the connection found within Maladaptive daydreaming is already very bold and likely WP:OR: "Professionals often describe it as a maladaptive coping mechanism" yet the citation itself only backs this up with anecdotal evidence, not other research. All this to say, when referring to the current citations, the link is weak and not widely noted; we could maybe add a section talking about comorbidity or list it among the similar phenomena, but not yet directly state the two are related.

Second, about the use of "pseudoscientific" -- I agree that it could be described that way, but I ran a word search and none of the current citations use that term. The article's tone is conservative and skeptical because that is the tone used in these references; to be more aggressive about the unscientific-ness of RS would be less accurate to the sources. It would be best to find a source that uses that exact word before adding it to prevent WP:SYNTH. The other articles like crystal healing or astrology only use that word because it is used in their citations.

Best,

Stormdew (talk) 20:02, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

I understand the concern regarding WP:SYNTH. However, I’d argue that the absence of the word 'pseudoscience' in current medical journals is due to the phenomenon's recency, not a lack of consensus.

Science communicators and academics like Dr. Inna Kanevsky (Ph.D. Psychology) have labeled the practice as pseudoscience, or at very least, having no basis in science.

If we cannot use the word in the lead yet, could we at least add a 'Scientific Reception' section that notes experts have criticized the use of scientific terminologys being used in a pseudoscientific context? I just want to ensure the article protects readers from misinformation and potential self-harm (UGSC). Miiversal (talk) 14:30, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

@Miiversal If you have any kind of citable reference from Kanevsky or another professional, please go ahead and add the word into the lead. A "Scientific reception" section would also be a good idea, if there's enough content on the matter.

Stormdew (talk) 17:38, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

One thing about sources documenting reality shifting and "subliminal audios"

Regarding the recent coverage of both practices in outlets like Wired, I want to caution editors against using these as 'reliable sources' for the actual efficacy or safety of reality shifting/subliminals.

These articles often adopt a 'wellness/lifestyle' tone that prioritizes anecdotal 'success stories' over scientific consensus. For example, the recent Wired piece about "subliminal audios", a closely related practice (https://www.wired.com/story/subliminals-tiktok-youtube-make-you-beautiful/), quotes a user claiming physical weight loss from audio alone without a disclaimer that this is scientifically impossible, and at worst, a form of medical misinformation. Per WP:MEDRS (Medical Reliable Sources), we should prioritize real research and expert debunking over lifestyle journalism when describing the physical or mental health effects of these practices. Miiversal (talk) 14:48, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Symbol

Why isn't there a shifting symbol? I mean, i know it's irrelevant but it's a part of shifting which means it should be putted in one of the images rather than Harry Potter (even tho it's popular lol). Creambuns 12 (talk) 12:45, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

@Creambuns 12: what do you mean by "shifting symbol"? ltbdl (smile) 13:27, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply but the pic that is shown. Creambuns 12 (talk) 07:11, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

I forgot to note that there are many variants of the shifting symbol like black and white Creambuns 12 (talk) 07:11, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

@Creambuns 12: i've not seen this before, where is it from? ltbdl (cringe) 07:15, 10 June 2026 (UTC)