Talk:Analytical psychology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Psychology (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 


Untitled[edit]

What about writing something nice here? --pippo2001 07:19, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And wilhelm reich isn't even mentioned? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.235.150.194 (talk) 00:22, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

spelling of extroversion/extraversion[edit]

shouldn't articles across wikipedia about jung respectfully spell extraversion the way he did?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.95.85.51 (talkcontribs).

Well I think he wrote that in German and not in English?

Proposed merger with depth psychology[edit]

The help desk mailing list has received a mailing list from a man who has completed a doctorate in depth psychology.

I would like to create an article on depth psychology, but Wikipedia already has in place a redirect straight into Analytical Psychology, with an incorrect statement that depth psychology is another term for AP. I hold a PhD in depth psych, and AP is really only one branch of it. I will correct the AP article, but is there any way to get around the redirect so I can create a new article on depth psych? Thx -- [[anon by User:Capitalistroadster 6 Dec 05

Edit the redirect http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Depth_psychology&redirect=no Paul foord 21:20, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Oppose: Depth psychology is an umbrella term to describe several different theories and clinical practices. To merge depth psychology into Analytical psychology would falsely portray the Jungian approach as the sole approach disavowing the others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cshelley (talkcontribs) 16:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Each article appears to have been written by editors w/out knowledge of the other. At least some X-ref & show relationship/develoment or possibly merge. -- Paul foord 21:20, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Oppose but Abstain: I don't have the technical expertise to address this substantively, but my understanding of academics generally is that in any field finer and finer distinctions are made: natural philosophy yields biology yields botany yields mycology, etc. As the field extends beyond Jung, the phrase "Jungian psychology" will become more and more historically specific, and suspect that the Jungian article should stay focussed on Jung and that this article should develop sub-sections as distinctions and schools within the discipline warrant it. Men's movement is a good example of this where diverse articles were created and then had to be united after the fact. In general, I suspect the time to split is when the table of contents exceeds a dozen items or the text is 20K or larger. - Rorybowman 17:00, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Possible: I think these terms are used interchangably and likely should be merged, but I'm not completely certain. I'll look more closely at this when I have time and see if I can help. I have some knowledge of this area and some good books I can refer to. --DanielCD 13:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

it looks like this has been discussed some already with ambiguous results, but it was brought up a couple times on the Carl Jung talk page in response to the Carl Jung/Jungian Psych merge suggestion. it seems like a more appropriate suggestion to merge analytical and jungian psych, so i thought i'd see where the discussion went on this idea. i will also post this on the Jungian psychology talk page. Acornwithwings 01:26, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Support merge, having suggested it at Talk:Carl Jung. If anyone's concern is technical expertise, I have it. I teach Jung every spring in my Personality course. Doczilla 07:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Merge completed per discussion here, there, and at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Psychology#Proposal_to_merge_Jungian_psychology_with_Carl_Jung. Doczilla 07:14, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Sweet, thanks much.Acornwithwings 21:19, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Strongly oppose merge: Evidently the articles have become de-merged since this debate transpired, and I'd like to propose that they be kept that way. Depth psychology is an umbrella term, encompassing "the ongoing development of theories and therapies pioneered by Pierre Janet, William James, C. G. Jung, Sigmund Freud, and Alfred Adler" (quoted from http://www.terrapsych.com/depth.html, added Wikilinks). No article on any one of these individuals can reasonably discuss the myriad comparisons and contrasts among these theorists. However, such discussion would be completely appropriate in an article about depth psychology--an idea that is simply not equivalent to Jungian depth psychology, and not condensible into a footnote to depth psychology. Cosmic Latte (talk) 10:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

To do[edit]

Some concepts to be elaborated on:

  • The psychological archetype
  • The ego
  • The Self — Sam 00:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


Considerable work[edit]

This article needs a lot of work. An extensive rewrite for a more encyclopedic style, organization and elaboration. I'm willing to contribute. I have tagged the article as I thought the overall quality was quite poor. I think that the only way we could do this is by including only referenced material. Supernaut76 00:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

As a specific request, would someone mind rewriting the introductory paragraph? It seems rather awkward. The paragraph starts with a sentence about the creator, then his followers, moves on to what Analytical psychology is NOT, and concludes with a more complex than necessary set of sentences. Someone who actually understands the subject better than I would be greatly thanked if they rewrote the opening sentence in the form:

"Analytical psychology is the study of (X) through (THESE METHODS), and was theorized by Carl Jung in his seminal work (SEMINAL WORK(S) HERE)."

MyOwnLittlWorld 23:33, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Category:Jungian psychology[edit]

Category:Jungian psychology is being nominated for a rename to Category:Analytical psychology. Comments are welcome at its discussion page. Samuel Grant 18:09, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Extravert vs Extrovert[edit]

"Jung's spelling is "extravert," which most dictionaries use; the variant "extrovert" is not preferred" -- is this really pertinent to the article? I came to learn about analytical psychology, not to learn about grammar! Twipley (talk) 02:05, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Needs references[edit]

This article needs lots of references, can the editors pls consider adding the same... when I get sometime, I will definitely add them, but busy for now... Keep up the good work. Bluptr (talk) 06:57, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Commercial link[edit]

I removed the link "Jung Films- Rare Interviews" as it appeared to link to a commercial website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.122.47.225 (talk) 23:31, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Feminist and Other Critiques?[edit]

How about a section of criticisms of analytical psychology? --Tedlau (talk) 15:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I am really surprised to find all this matter about Jung and his psychology without even a brief reference to the fact that most clinical psychologists today consider the man to have been a mystical nutter and his school of thought completely pseudoscientific. Jungianism is an occult movement, not part of the science of psychology. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 21:17, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with science at all- I suggest that this article is deleted or rewritten as a whole, because it contains no empirical information whatsover —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.195.52.159 (talk) 11:00, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Is it the role of an encyclopedia to push a pure positives paradigm of the social sciences? I would imagine that pointing out his ontological, epistemological and methodological assumptions would be the most encyclopedic and NPOV manner in which to handle questions of difference in theory. -RSaylors (talk) 00:19, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
I have added an empty Criticisms section to be filled out. 93.96.236.8 (talk) 11:44, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
It would be far better, and truer to an Encyclopaedia, to have another article page on the other types of psychology or epistomology. MacOfJesus (talk) 22:04, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Constructive Imagination[edit]

I use Jung's work on this frequently, to good effect, in "Secure Units". I can witness to the value of his work here. I did not notice his work on it in the article page? MacOfJesus (talk) 15:02, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Good article, but...[edit]

...can someone explain and expand the relationship between Freud and Jung more in detail? I'm still trying to figure out what they differ on, and this article hasn't really helped. How is analytical psychology different from Freudian psychology? Or is that section dealt with in some other article like Carl_Jung or something? Squarrels (talk) 11:42, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

About the Animus and Anima[edit]

There was one question I wished to ask when reading about the Animus and Anima.

One line says: "(e.g. a man who acts aggressively and never cries)"

But then further states that Animus is the rational mind and Anima is the irrational.

I feel it bears some contradiction in it's explanation.

A man who acts aggressively and never cries still acts irrationaly, thus he has an Anima, but of course, wouldn't be in contact with it. If he wasn't in contact wih the Anima, wouldn't that state he'd be rational and responsible all the time?

It begs for a bit more explanation in my opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DarkDisguise (talkcontribs) 19:06, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Individual archetypes[edit]

Is it ok to talk about an "individual archetype"? Or about creating an archetype? According to the Jungian archetypes article, the archetype is an "ancient or archaic images that derive from the collective unconscious". As far as I know, only collective aspects of unconscious can be refered as archetypes. If it is individual, it is not an archetype by definition. --Ale murakami (talk) 17:58, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Sentence to be fixed[edit]

The following sentence in the article's "Shadow" section 1) inaccurately characterizes what the source says and 2) is not a complete sentence. I don't have time right now to fix this sentence, so this is a placemarker for later work. Anyone else feel free to fix this sentence. Thanks.

  • The shadow may also concern great figures in the history of human thought or even spiritual masters, who became great just because their shadows or their possibility of living shadows, namely, their unconscious faults, in full, without repressing them.[1]

-- Rednblu (talk) 15:42, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Illustration[edit]

Hi. Why is this article illustrated with a photo of the Freud's museum? I'd suggest to change it to something Jung-related. (Haven't figured out the photo editing yet)Cosainsé (talk) 22:57, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Cosainsé! The picture belongs to the box "Part of a series of articles on Psychoanalysis" - see for instance Relational psychoanalysis or Self psychology, that have the same box. However, if you would like to insert a Jung-related picture, that would of course be great. One place to find these pictures is of course in our article on Jung. With friendly regards, Lova Falk talk 09:51, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
    • ^ Arena, Leonardo Vittorio (2013). The Shadows of the Masters. ebook.