Talk:Orgastic potency/Archive 1

Meco, just noting that Bali is correct about these edits. They fall under our definition of original research because they combine sources to give an impression that the authors did not intend to give. That is, the authors you're using to discuss premature ejaculation were not discussing, and did not intend to support, Reich's ideas.

It's sometimes legitimate to add these asides to inform readers of background, but it should only be done when it's not contentious, and when there's no risk of misleading the reader. But in this article, the addition of mainstream scholarly sources who were not discussing Reich might tend to mislead. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:22, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I just reverted Bali before reading your post. I quite disagree with your assessment of the effect of having this information, sourced to medical authoritative references, appear the way Gulpen added them to the article. Yes, very stupid readers are going to see a peer-reviewed (I'm assuming) journal among the article's references and think that must mean this topic has mainstream support. For all that are not exceedingly blunted it remains however very apparent that this information, insidence (or is it prevalence) of various forms of sexual dysfunction, does not opaquely conflate with the subsequent discussions which in both cases begin with "According to Reich". I find it absolutely intolerable that contextually relevant mainstram statistics should be attempted purged from an article because its topic is a non-mainstream therapy or theory. Also, I believe as you refer to original research you do in fact mean original synthesis, which I also cannot concede being the case in this matter. I'm more than willing to hear your elaboration on your previous post and response to what I have just written. __meco (talk) 10:11, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with "Slim Virgin." What you find intolerable as you seek to push pseudoscience is neither here nor there.Bali ultimate (talk) 12:56, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Meco, the edits were a variant of SYN in that they combined sources (American Urological Association in 2004 and Reich pre-1957) that were discussing different issues within different contexts:

About 21% of men experience ejaculation within two minutes.^[1] According to Reich, ejaculation soon after penetration prevents sufficient concentration of excitation in the penis and therefore renders complete discharge of the excitation impossible.

The synthesis gave the impression that 21 percent of men suffer from a lack of orgastic potency -- that Reich's ideas apply to that 21 percent. If you want to include research about premature ejaculation, you would need a reliable source that refers to it within a discussion of Reich – a source that combines the material the way you want to combine it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:13, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Having ruminated upon this for a couple of hours I can soften my categorical opposition somewhat. I remember having read a guideline which did use an example similar to the present case (can't find it now though), however, the significant difference would seem to be that with this article, the alleged synthesis is not used to give added authority to the other information. That I believe is the key issue. I have two questions for you. The first, if the Reich sources contained reference to statistics on prevalence of these conditions, say from 1935, that referenced official, undeniably RS sources, would it then be ok to have it included? The second question, if, rather than using a scientific journal, the statistics was referenced from e.g. an article in Time magazine, would that have lessened your objections, since this obviously wouldn't have the previously discussed effect of "spicing" the prose with tangential (contextural) information referenced to high-authority sources? __meco (talk) 08:05, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

To answer the second question first, no, it would make no difference whether it was a news item or an academic source. The issue is that a Wikipedian is making the link between the subject matter of source 1 (21 per cent of men suffer from X) and the subject matter of source 2 (Reich's theory of orgastic potency). No reliable source has been presented that makes the same link. That makes it original research.

As to your first question, yes, if Reich or any other source discusses those conditions while discussing orgastic potency, you can include it. You just have to be careful to make sure it's not misleading, i.e. be careful not to reproduce old science or bad science without signalling that in the text. It can be tricky to do that without engaging in OR again, which is why articles like this need some careful writing. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:28, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

If I may add my two cents here. A) please note that reliable statistics of anything related to orgasms and sexuality basically did not exist when Reich wrote most of this material (ie. before Kinsey and Masters&Johnson). At that time, therapists that paid attention to sexuality, like Reich, probably had a better idea of the prevalence and absence of such phenomenon in society than anyone else. (Also, lets not forget Reich delved through many case files.) B) even nowadays there is no consensus on a definition of e.g. premature ejaculation, but the standard definition used is 'ejaculation under 2 minutes'. Thus, C) the challenge is what to do when Reich writes, say, 'premature ejaculation, very common among men, ..', where "premature ejaculation" = the definition, and "very common" = the statistic. The point is here simply to clarify what "very common" would roughly mean. Even clarifying that it is "under 2 minutes" in a standard definition is of value here.

Also please note that the interest of that whole section is primarily to understand that Reich defined potency very different from the mainstream view, with major consequences for what would be considered sexual health on the level of society. Here the 'size' of the statistic could become important - and in this I can somewhat understand Bali ultimate's point - because it explains why Reich's criticism of society would still be of contemporary relevance, i.e. even after the sexual revolution...Though I'm not sure whether this adds to or subtracts from the validity of this theory.--Gulpen (talk) 21:40, 10 September 2012 (UTC).

I deleted this section altogether now. I did this mainly because it was framed like a medical subject rather than an elaboration of the theory. I hope parts will be re-inserted when framed more like the latter.--Gulpen (talk) 13:03, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Under central concepts should be added some of Reich's work on the The Bioelectrical Investigation of Sexuality and Anxiety. This is now partially included in the criticism section, but should instead/also be part of the main text.--Gulpen (talk) 21:20, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

The baker reference now used there can be replaced by this one. --Gulpen (talk) 13:21, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

There have been som accusations that most of the sources used for this article are inadmissible as self-published sources. In the last several hours I have also seen Gulpen remove text from the article that is referenced to Reich himself using that explanation. I believe this may be unwarranted. I recommend Gulpen use WP:RSN to ensure the quality (and thus applicability) of the Reich sources rather than offhand accepting claims of inapplicability forwarded by any user on the present talk page. __meco (talk) 08:00, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I intended to replace them with the idea that the objection concerns whether those are WP:Third-party_sources.--Gulpen (talk) 13:09, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I think I'm not understanding something here, because another senior editor also told me it was ok to use Reich's own work for descriptive purposes. Could you please explain?--Gulpen (talk) 15:46, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I have a reduced online presence for the time being. Please ask at the noticeboard which I gave the link to above. __meco (talk) 16:45, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I overlooked your suggestion there. Will do.--Gulpen (talk) 17:16, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I asked some questions here.--Gulpen (talk) 18:02, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

The orgasm reflex in my opinion merits an article of its own, unless it can be incorporated in the existing orgasm article. It certainly needs to be detailed in its four distinct stages and with it the characteristic flowchart which can be found in Reich's literature. In the context of the present article I find it specifically lacking without a distinct explanation and discussion of the orgasm reflex, as it relates to the free flow or stasis of the energy that is ideally released fully during the orgasm. And as part of discussing the orgasm reflex, the function of the orgasm should be explicitly and as lucidly as possible explained and defined. Any thoughts? __meco (talk) 16:32, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes it probably merits a separate article. But I'm not quite clear about whether you want it to be part of this article or not. Also, could you please specify which flowchart you are referring to? (I presume it is in The Function of the Orgasm?) By the way, I just came across this article: having images similar to figures 14a, 14b and 15 there would be very useful to explain the orgasm reflex. I would have liked to include several of Reich's flowcharts on orgastic potency too, but direct copying to Commons is not allowed. Do you think that it is worth the effort to create graphs 'inspired by' Reich's? It seems almost impossible to make them any different from his.--Gulpen (talk) 20:05, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

No, simply copying charts made by Reich (the one I'm thinking of surely was in The Function of the Orgasm) will not be allowed until 70 years after his death, however, the charts should be easily duplicated. As for the images you suggest, I do not like them. I find them confusing. __meco (talk) 08:36, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

And I do want it included in this article. Other central Reichian concepts that similarly I believe warrant their separate articles, but pending that should be considered for inclusion in the present article are "character structure" (i.e. genital vs. neurotic) and "muscular armoring". The latter is currently parenthetically defined as "chronic muscular contraction," however I believe that is much too cursory to imbue the minimum level of understanding a reader should have in order to grasp its encompassing ramifications in the context of Reichian theory. __meco (talk) 09:49, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I agree they warrant their separate articles too - same applies to the sociology section. In fact, I was thinking that it may be better to split "the orgasm theory" and "orgastic potency" into different articles, at any rate that theory and the latter concept could be differentiated between a bit more clearly in the present article.--Gulpen (talk) 22:30, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

To illustrate what I mean by extracting "the orgasm theory" from this article, please take a look at this: the human sexual response cycle. Perhaps that could be used as a model article for (the most important part of) the article "orgastic potency".--Gulpen (talk) 23:19, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I didn't even know about that cycle, and Reich isn't even mentioned in that article depsite the obvious analogy to his model! That's an omission. __meco (talk) 08:41, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

How could you have not known about the human sexual response cycle? It's covered in various reliable sources and is often mentioned regarding sexual arousal/orgasm. There is no "obvious analogy to [Reich's] model" when it comes to the human sexual response cycle. Do read up on it; it has nothing to do with Reich, meaning that it is not based on anything Reich believed. Further, it is the clinically accepted definition of the human sexual response (sexual arousal/orgasm). It is not a theory or anything of the sort. All of that is why Reich is not mentioned in that article. Nor should he be, per WP:Fringe and WP:Undue, except for in the See also section where Gulpen listed this article. 199.229.232.42 (talk) 10:03, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and "orgasm reflex" does not merit its own article; it is a fringe theory, for goodness sakes, even less significant than "orgastic potency." It should not be treated as fact, or as otherwise having as much weight as scientific consensus. It should only be mentioned in reference to Reich. In this article. You both really do need to read WP:Fringe and WP:Undue. I'm going to ask Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine to comment on some of this. 199.229.232.42 (talk) 10:14, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

You conflating orgastic potency, the orgasm theory and the orgasm reflex is precisely why three separate articles are justified. In particular the first and the last are conceptually worlds apart, based on very different arguments and theories. Though there is no analogy whatsoever between the human sexual response cycle and the orgasm theory, there most definitely is between the former and orgastic potency (cf. foreplay, penetration, voluntary phase of sexual movements, involuntary phase of muscle contractions, phase of relaxation (as it is summarised by Boadella) with excitement phase, plateau phase, orgasmic phase, and resolution phase)

Nowhere do I (or Meco, I believe) argue that Reich's views have as much scientific consensus as those of e.g. Masters and Johnson - obviously it doesn't - nor do I (correct me if I'm wrong) in anyway argue to present them as holy facts, nor that Reich's concepts should be presented as a non-Reichian concept. I'm trying my best to write factually accurate about Reich's work, something that has proven to be very difficult, though a nice challenge. I have no hidden agenda to hide any relevant, reliable view, verification, falsification, etc. when it comes to Reich's work. However, it is very frustrating to constantly encounter people writing and claiming stuff about Reich and his work while not referring to any sources. So to make this a constructive exchange - so that I can learn about this too - please refer to the sources on which you base the following:

• "There is no "obvious analogy to [Reich's] model" when it comes to the human sexual response cycle. Do read up on it;" > can you please find the source discussing the (non-)analogy between orgastic potency and the HSRC?
• "it has nothing to do with Reich, meaning that it is not based on anything Reich believed." > can you please find the source where the relation between M&J's work to that of Reich is discussed? Kinsey, for example, mentions Reich's work when he introduces his differentiation between "orgasm" and "orgastic pleasure" (Kinsey, A. (1948) Sexual Behaviour in the Human Male: p. 59-60).
• "It is not a theory or anything of the sort" > can you please find the source comparing Reich and Masters and Johnson's work, concluding that orgastic potency was based on "a theory or anything of the sort" while the HSRC had a 'non-theory' basis?
• Finally, "It should not be treated as fact" > can you please find a source discussing the status of orgastic potency, concluding that it is not valid?

That would help us very much to have an informed discussion here.--Gulpen (talk) 13:48, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I did not conflate a thing. Nowhere did I state that "orgastic potency" and "orgasm reflex" are the same thing, even though "orgasm reflex" is apparently discussed as part of "orgastic potency." And even if I had, three separate articles still wouldn't be justified. What you state about conflating "orgasm theory," I don't know what "orgasm theory" you are referring to, other than Reich's. The human sexual response cyle -- excitement phase, plateau phase, orgasmic phase, resolution phase -- is not "orgasm theory." It is a four-stage model of physiological responses during sexual stimulation, coined by Masters and Johnson. It is a cycle that has been observed by many researchers since Masters and Johnson identified it. It does not relate to Reich whatsoever, other than your and Meco's WP:Original research assertion that Reich came up with the "concept" in some way before they did. As for you trying to "write factually accurate about Reich's work, something that has proven to be very difficult, though a nice challenge," you are promoting or attempting to promote this theory in other articles, especially if you, like Meco, believe that it should actually be given more weight than its See-also mention in the Human sexual response cycle article. Other than that See-also link, it does not belong there. I have no comment on any hidden agenda you may or may not have on this topic; one does not have to have a hiden agenda to want to promote their work across Wikipedia. I have no problem understanding wanting others to see your work and read about this topic. But WP:Fringe and WP:Undue must be respected. So must WP:Notability. Perhaps "orgastic potency" has a bit of notability, but I doubt that the same can be said of "orgasm reflex." If notability is not there, why should Reich's theories get more Wikipedia space than other psychoanalysts? It's not like his views are as notable as Sigmund Freud's, or even close to as notable. And like it or not, just like a lot of Freud's views, Reich's views fall into the fringe and undue categories when applied to other articles. The only difference is that Freud can almost always get some bit of weight because he was so prominent.

I don't have to find a source discussing the non-analogy between "orgastic potency" and the human sexual response cycle; you have to find a source -- a reliable one -- discussing the analogy between them. The WP:BURDEN lies with you. I don't have to find a source stating that "it has nothing to do with Reich, meaning that it is not based on anything Reich believed." It is your job to provide a source claiming the opposite. The WP:BURDEN lies with you. Kinsey mentioning Reich's work when he introduced his differentiation between "orgasm" and "orgastic pleasure" does not mean that the human sexual response cycle has anything to do with Reich. I do not have to find a source comparing Reich and Masters and Johnson's work, concluding that orgastic potency was based on "a theory or anything of the sort" while the human sexual response cycle had a non-theory basis. The WP:BURDEN lies with you. But I will state that Masters and Johnson observed this cycle in their subjects; it wasn't something they simply postulated. Like I already stated, the human sexual response cycle is the clinically accepted definition of the human sexual response (sexual arousal/orgasm). It is accepted in various reliable sources as valid, and very much not a theory in those sources. If it wasn't scientifically sound, it would not be so widely accepted in today's scientific world. The same cannot be said of Reich's views. I certainly do not have to find a source discussing the status of "orgastic potency," concluding that it is not valid. The WP:BURDEN lies with you to provide a source -- a highly reliable source in this case -- suggesting or showing that it is valid. As the lead of this article currently says, "The concept is not accepted as valid outside Reichian circles." 199.229.232.42 (talk) 18:49, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I've also addressed this issue at the Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard. 199.229.232.42 (talk) 19:32, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I have removed the Reception section, which is invalidated by the realistic last sentence of the lede. —MistyMorn (talk) 20:22, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I have reinserted the "reception" section, because that is at any rate based on sources, contrary to the last sentence of the lead - can you please suggest some constructive improvements for that section? Or are we here only trying to destroy things?--Gulpen (talk) 23:58, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

199.229.232.42, are you sure you understand the difference between the "orgasm theory" and the concept "orgastic potency"? Please compare these four sentences:

• me: "there is no analogy whatsoever between the human sexual response cycle and the orgasm theory"
• you: "The human sexual response cy[c]le . . . is not 'orgasm theory.'"

Yes, that is exactly what I said. You still seem to ignore however the analogy that I did suggest.

• you: "The human sexual response cyle -- [1.] excitement phase, [2.] plateau phase, [3.] orgasmic phase, [4.] resolution phase . . . is a four-stage model of physiological responses during sexual stimulation"
• me: "there most definitely is between the [HSRC] and orgastic potency (cf. [1.] foreplay [and] penetration, [2.] voluntary phase of sexual movements, [3.] involuntary phase of muscle contractions, [4.] phase of relaxation"

True: that is based on my own observation and I won't try to include it in the HSRC article. I just find the analogy staggering (perhaps M&J got away with plagiarism!) You imply in every way that Reich came up with his theories in his armchair, postulating wildly in the air. On the contrary he undertook a most serious research effort, studying many clinical cases (as detailed in Genitality in the Theory and Therapy of Neurosis). The wide support for the HSRC seems only to (indirectly) support Reich's model and the accuracy of his clinical research! Sad for Reich if nobody noticed, if nobody wrote an article on that.. But hey, he is dead anyway.--Gulpen (talk) 23:58, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Your detailing a four-stage cycle, based on Boadella, in the context of the stir triggered by me pointing out the obvious analogy between the HSRC and Reich's "orgasm reflex" seems to me to cause an unwanted digression since my observation was solely regarding the structural similarities between the HSRC and the orgasm reflex, not the HSRC and orgastic potency. The latter I must say is less relevant and simply adds confusion as the situation currently stands. The four phases of the orgasm (reflex) is discussed throughly in Reich's seminal The Function of the Orgasm. And the centrality of this book to all of Reich's subsequent work, and similarly to everybody that followed up on his work is clearly not evident to the casual reader nor to the zealous debunker, so for this reason also this book needs its own article, along with Character Analysis as these are his two most important books. All in due time. __meco (talk) 08:29, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Gulpen, you appear to have a habit of telling those who object to any part of this article or this article as a whole that they simply don't understand the difference between "orgastic potency" and "orgone" or "orgastic potency" and whatever else. I don't want to understand. As others have stated, this is not sexual science; it certainly is not something that I have any bit of interest reading up on, even for the entertainment factor. Nor do I have to read up on it to understand the problems with this article, especially when it comes you or Meco trying to expand these fringe ideas to other articles or discussing creating articles on them. It was me who stated, "There is no 'obvious analogy to [Reich's] model' when it comes to the human sexual response cycle." You stated, "can you please find the source discussing the (non-)analogy between orgastic potency and the HSRC?" And, well, you saw what I stated to that. You also added, "Though there is no analogy whatsoever between the human sexual response cycle and the orgasm theory, there most definitely is between the former and orgastic potency (cf. foreplay, penetration, voluntary phase of sexual movements, involuntary phase of muscle contractions, phase of relaxation (as it is summarised by Boadella) with excitement phase, plateau phase, orgasmic phase, and resolution phase)." I also responded to that. But I'll do it again, with consideration for your second reply: Reich's model is based on heterosexual sex and his #1 specifically somewhat focuses on penetration; Masters and Johnson's are not/do not. For his #2, Reich focuses on the "voluntary phase of sexual movements." For their #2, while voluntary sexual movements are a part of it (just as they are a part of each human sexual response cycle phase, the actions leading up to the involuntary reactions that happen during orgasm and those regarding how people voluntarily move during and after orgasm), Masters and Johnson's #2 does not focus on that. Yes, their #1 does. But their #2 does not. Nor, like I stated, is it based on heterosexual sex. The plateau phase is characterized "by an increased circulation and heart rate in both sexes, increased sexual pleasure with increased stimulation, and further increased muscle tension. Also, respiration continues at an elevated level." So the only true similarity between Reich's model and Masters and Johnson's model are the last two phases. It does not at all imply that Masters and Johnson stole Reich's model and put a few spins on it; you won't find a reliable source claiming such either. I don't know about Reich coming up with his theories in his armchair, postulating wildly in the air (nice rhyme), but I do know that his theories are postulations only; nothing backed in science, with the exception of parts of Masters and Johnson's human sexual response cycle. I also know that not all of his theories were researched as you claim. Some of his theories simply could not be researched, and he obviously did not do enough in his "serious research effort." Unlike his sexual response model, Masters and Johnson's was based on having observed this in individuals; theirs debunked myth after myth. So, again, I very much doubt that they decided to steal the model of a psychoanalyst whose views were considered pseudoscience even at the time he shared them. Masters and Johnson were about proving/disproving postulations, not about holding on to unproven ones.

Meco, no, I am not detailing a four-stage cycle based on Boadella. Again, it "does not relate to Reich whatsoever, other than your and Gulpen's WP:Original research assertion that Reich came up with the 'concept' in some way before they did. And seeing as, before yesterday, you didn't even know that the human sexual response cycle existed, I cannot take anything you state about it seriously. Not until you at least read up on it and see just how thoroughly accepted it is as the definition of the human sexual response (sexual arousal/orgasm), unlike Reich's supposed similar model. 199.229.232.42 (talk) 15:53, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for appreciating my poetic abilities. (By the way, I was not serious about that M&J stole Reich's work, just to be clear on that). Yes you have many good points and - though there are some parallels, there are many (more) divergences.

However, I have to take objection to the following: "I don't know about Reich coming up with his theories in his armchair, postulating wildly in the air (nice rhyme), but I do know that his theories are postulations only; nothing backed in science, with the exception of parts of Masters and Johnson's human sexual response cycle. I also know that not all of his theories were researched as you claim. Some of his theories simply could not be researched, and he obviously did not do enough in his "serious research effort." Unlike his sexual response model, Masters and Johnson's was based on having observed this in individuals"

Forgive me now for quoting from Reich directly here - but secondary literature confirms this: "The first statistical study was comprised of 338 individuals who sought treatment at the Vienna Psychoanalytic Out-patient Clinic between November 1923 and November 1924. . . . [list of all statistics]. A second study consisted of cases I treated myself. 41 male patients . . . 31 female patients. . . . [list of all statistics]. These findings speak for themselves. Since 1925 clinical experience--including the many hundreds of cases I personally evaluated in the course of two years at my Sexual Guidance Center for Working People and Office Employees in Vienna and, after 1930, at centers in Germany--has demonstrated that there is no neurosis without a disturbance of the genital function." (from Genitality in the Theory and Therapy of Neurosis: 39-42). That is: close to a decade of research concerning close to a thousand clinical cases. The book is 226 pages detailing all the various types of sexual practices, and arguments to link it to theory.

Is that not serious science? The problem is not that he didn't undertake a serious research effort, but that nobody else ever seriously reproduced this! This is the fact: Reich's research evidence stands (both unchallenged and unverified).

So I just wanted to ask here - how did you know what you claimed?--Gulpen (talk) 20:48, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, you seem to think my previous post above was addressed to you. It wasn't. As the indentation dictates it was addressed to Gulpen (and I'm still waiting for a response from them btw.). __meco (talk) 08:11, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I have to submit here that, relative to orgastic potency, I know only very little about the orgasm reflex. I should have limited my claim about the analogy (from my pov, which seems to have been [partially] wrong anyway) to orgastic potency, without implying matters about the orgasm reflex. I will look into that analogy after this article is of somewhat agreeable quality - or perhaps to add a paragraph about that in this article.--Gulpen (talk) 13:04, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

To Gulpen, Reich's research is called pseudoscience. I expressed that his theories are not backed in science because, unless only going by his word or speaking of the "orgastic potency" orgasm phases and how they compare to Masters and Johnson's, they weren't shown to be supported by science, completely, mostly, or even a little bit. They haven't ever been. Specifically, we were talking about "orgastic potency," not neurosis concerning a disturbance of the genital function. Did he set up a lab environment to bring subjects in and observe the orgasmic phases he described, like Masters and Johnson did with their subjects? It doesn't appear so. You ask "How did [I] know what [I] claimed?" as if again the WP:BURDEN lies with me. So we're supposed to assume that Reich did the kind of research Masters and Johnson did, but simply failed to document it or that the documentation got lost? If there is no research supporting Reich, other than his own claims, then his claims are only claims. I know what I claim about his theories not being backed in science because scientific consensus doesn't support his theories. It doesn't matter if part of something Reich claimed seems to be supported by today's research, because his work in total is not supported by today's research. Even back then, as noted, he didn't have much support for his theories.

To Meco, the editors I've seen on Wikipedia don't always or mostly follow that aspect of the WP:INDENT essay. 199.229.232.42 (talk) 21:41, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Notwithstanding WP:BURDEN as regards edits I make. Here, you are also a human being who bases his or her statements on something or another, or nothing. Here I have asked you what you base your claims on. I ask this because I AM TRYING TO LEARN but like everyone else here stating whatever about Reich... I will have to move through my own research. Pseudoscience is something that defies the scientific method. What I know is that his Character Analysis and Mass Psychology of Fascism are still considered classics and authoritative - the outcome of which was Reich consistently applying the concept orgastic potency. As regards the statistics I mentioned, that statistical observation is very easy to reproduce. What I also know is that Reich adhered to the scientific methods at least regarding his bio-electric experiments.. So at least then he still knew the meaning of and applied the scientific method. This I ask, have you seriously looked into how he constructed his description of the sexual experience in case of orgastic potency? Or are you assuming he had no scientific basis, arguments, methods, etc. for constructing it as he did until someone else shows you the opposite? A hypothesis is not proven wrong by not supplying evidence - you prove it wrong by supplying evidence that proofs it wrong. Again, notwithstanding WP:BURDEN as regards edits. Though your comparison is sharp in some regards, you missed out on that Reich's is a psychosomatic typology, M&J's is purely somatic. Delving into the human psyche is therefore at least one aspect one has to investigate, is it not? And perchance this happens to be the case in psychoanalysis - in therapy. That is where Reich got most of his early evidence and this is most certainly described in detail in his publications. M&J's model does not seem to directly undermine Reich's - that is my main observation, fortifying the thesis that Reich was not just conjuring up evidence to support bizarre theories.--Gulpen (talk) 00:55, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

To continue talking with you about this seems hopeless. I have answered what I have based my claims on. Specifically regarding Reich's research being pseudoscience and fringe, mine aren't even claims. Reich's theories are pseudoscience. They are fringe. "If there is no research supporting [Reich's hypotheses], other than his own claims, then his claims are only claims." Therefore, they are not supported by science. Pseudoscience is also about defying scientific logic/consensus. The Big Bang is also still a theory, but it is supported by a ton of science and is accepted by most scientists. The only things about "orgastic potency" that are supported by science are the aspects of it that are supported in Masters and Johnson's four-stage model of physiological responses during sexual stimulation -- the human sexual response cycle. But we've already went over how the models differ, that they are not the same, and that no reliable source discusses the similarities between them. It is only our observation that "orgastic potency" is somewhat supported by Masters and Johnson's four-stage model -- the human sexual response cycle. If any of Reich's other research "is very easy to reproduce," then it would have been reproduced by now. You commented that "A hypothesis is not proven wrong by not supplying evidence," but hypotheses are sometimes proven wrong by newer research clearly showing older research to be unlikely or an impossibility. And it's usually research that is not supported by science that is ignored by scientists/other researchers. It is not like Reich's research has not been included in the mainstream view because of a simple overlooking; it's because mainstream scientists see no validity in most of it. Some likely see no validity in any of it. It's not like his research is just waiting for a researcher to come along and "actually" look at his work and then declare that most or all of it is valid. I didn't miss out that "Reich's is a psychosomatic typology, M&J's is purely somatic." I'm the one who outlined the differences between the two models to you. You can obviously keep your opinions about Reich's research, but, while adding information about it on Wikipedia, you need to better respect how that research holds up against scientific consensus. You removed the fringe tag from the article and created a Status section about the status of "orgastic potency" not being clear because "it remains little discussed in academic literature"; this is WP:Original research/dishonest WP:Editorializing. The fact that "orgastic potency" and/or any of Reich's theories are discussed little (very little) in academic literature makes the status of the theories fringe. And to state that "in 2010, Reich's experiments investigating the biological grounding of the orgasm theory were independently confirmed"? If that line is not simply stating that his having done these experiments is confirmed, then it is a lousy attempt to make it seem as though "orgastic potency" is supported by science. 199.229.232.42 (talk) 18:54, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

That is not a louzy attempt - those experiments were actually reproduced and confirmed, follow-up on the link I supplied (admittedly, that sentence needs further elaboration - working on it). You comment: "If any of Reich's other research 'is very easy to reproduce,' then it would have been reproduced by now . . . It is not like Reich's research has not been included in the mainstream view because of a simple overlooking." Are you not aware of the way in which Reich was attacked ad hominem in the media throughout his life? That has been the main platform for the verification of his theories - not through scientific argument or reproduction. That the first time an academic took up Reich's 1937 bio-electric experiments happened only in 2010 supports my claim here. Nowhere do I write Reich's work is mainstream - I'm very well aware that it is fringe in that sense - and also that it is not science in your definition of "consensus". But that does not imply it is pseudoscience in the meaning of defying scientific logic. Feel free to rephrase that "status is unclear" to whatever is more appropriate. But the fact remains that I found a study confirming a/the major underpinning of the orgasm theory - while we do not have a single source stating that and explaining why orgastic potency/the orgasm theory is not valid, and note that translating the absence of the later into "the orgasm theory is not valid" is likewise dishonest editorialising. I removed the fringe tag in accordance with what I proposed in the "fringe written as fact" discussion, and to which nobody voiced objections for three days. It is clearly indicated in the lead that this is a "Reichian" concept and theory, enough connotated by that, no?--Gulpen (talk) 22:46, 23 September 2012 (UTC)