Editing Pseudoscience (section)

===Psychology===
The psychology of pseudoscience attempts to explore and analyze pseudoscientific thinking by means of thorough clarification on making the distinction of what is considered scientific vs. pseudoscientific. The human proclivity for seeking confirmation rather than refutation ([[confirmation bias]]),{{sfnp|Devilly|2005|p=439}} the tendency to hold comforting beliefs, and the tendency to overgeneralize have been proposed as reasons for pseudoscientific thinking. According to Beyerstein, humans are prone to associations based on resemblances only, and often prone to misattribution in cause-effect thinking.<ref>{{cite journal|vauthors=Beyerstein B, Hadaway P|year=1991|title=On avoiding folly|journal=Journal of Drug Issues|volume=20|issue=4|pages=689–700|doi=10.1177/002204269002000418|s2cid=148414205}}</ref>

[[Michael Shermer]]'s theory of belief-dependent realism is driven by the idea that the brain is essentially a "belief engine" which scans data perceived by the senses and looks for patterns and meaning. There is also the tendency for the brain to create [[cognitive bias]]es, as a result of inferences and assumptions made without logic and based on instinct – usually resulting in patterns in cognition. These tendencies of [[Apophenia|patternicity]] and agenticity are also driven "by a meta-bias called the [[bias blind spot]], or the tendency to recognize the power of cognitive biases in other people but to be blind to their influence on our own beliefs".<ref name="zbHau">{{cite journal|last=Shermer|first=Michael|author-link=Michael Shermer|year=2011|title=Understanding the believing brain: Why science is the only way out of belief-dependent realism |url=http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-believing-brain/|journal=Scientific American|doi=10.1038/scientificamerican0711-85|access-date=14 August 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160830132644/http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-believing-brain/|archive-date=30 August 2016|url-status=live}}</ref>
Lindeman states that social motives (i.e., "to comprehend self and the world, to have a sense of control over outcomes, to belong, to find the world benevolent and to maintain one's self-esteem") are often "more easily" fulfilled by pseudoscience than by scientific information.<!-- <ref name="Lindeman"/> --> Furthermore, pseudoscientific explanations are generally not analyzed rationally, but instead experientially.<!-- <ref name="Lindeman"/> --> Operating within a different set of rules compared to rational thinking, experiential thinking regards an explanation as valid if the explanation is "personally functional, satisfying and sufficient", offering a description of the world that may be more personal than can be provided by science and reducing the amount of potential work involved in understanding complex events and outcomes.<ref name="Lindeman">{{cite journal|vauthors=Lindeman M|title=Motivation, cognition and pseudoscience|journal=Scandinavian Journal of Psychology|volume=39|issue=4|pages=257–265|year=1998 |pmid=9883101|doi=10.1111/1467-9450.00085}}</ref>

Anyone searching for psychological help that is based in science should seek a licensed therapist whose techniques are not based in pseudoscience. Hupp and Santa Maria provide a complete explanation of what that person should look for.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Hupp |first1=Stehpen |editor1-last=Santa Maria |editor1-first=Cara |title=Pseudoscience in Therapy |date=2023 |publisher=Cmbridge University Press |location=New York and London |isbn=978-1-009-00510-4 |pages=54–64}}</ref>