Talk:Human Potential Movement

Untitled

NOTE: recent messages have been moved to the bottom of the page to maintain chronological integrity.--Kudpung (talk) 19:29, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I also had to sort chronologically the posts again, that seemed to be in random order. —PaleoNeonate – 03:52, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Controversy

"The movement has received criticism in two forms. The first is from researchers in psychology, medicine, and science who often dismiss the movement as being grounded in pseudoscience, overusing Psycho-babble, and whose efficacy can be explained entirely by placebo. This criticism was expressed by Richard Feynman's response to his visit at Esalen."

As for me, use of the word 'placebo' with regard to the mental techniques is totally wrong. It could stand for the pills and other drug medicines. But not for the mental techniques, since placebo effect itself is a form of mental technique (if it works). Thus, there is _NO DIFFERENCE_ between placebo effect and mental technique.

Placebo effect is not a mental technique, and I defy you to provide any evidence that it is. It is chiefly manifested as a statistical phenomenon. If you look at the article about it you'll see that many people consider it solely organic. And are you implying that placebo effect is a technique of the human potential movement? John FitzGerald 02:14, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Mental techniques don't work for everybody. It's individual question. I've been practising NLP, Transcendental Meditation, visualisation-related methods (with regards to thinking capabilities), Silva method, speed reading and other methods _for years_ with good effects. And I don't care whether some scientist accepts it as truth or not, especially that, as I said, those techniques are _individual-based_.

I say mental techniques work for nobody – to disprove that null hypothesis you can cite some properly controlled studies which disprove it. John FitzGerald

So, one may criticise as pseudoscience some 'archeologic revelations' as well as the 'brand new' new ideas for 'perpetual engine'; but let the sceptics stay away from the mental techniques, for they will never be able to prove them always beneficial or always harmful (or non-efficient) simply because those techniques are individual and not universal, and even if some technique works for the single person on the planet Earth, it's fine (because this person is better off). (Critto, but unlogged)

No techniques are uniformly helpful, whether there's evidence that they work or not. John FitzGerald

I am the main author of this article, and I agree with your criticism of this paragraph. I too have had a lot of experience with "mental techniques" and agree that they work for some people and that they work in much the same way as placebo. However, I do think that the skeptics have a point, but I do not know how best to express it. I am in many ways a hard-nosed skeptic myself and find myself to be annoyed quite often at the way some "mental techniques" are supported, justified, or theorized using pseudoscientific nonsense. So, I find myself kinda split on the whole idea. This is really very similar as the perrennial psudo-scientific "problems" with psychoanalysis. Here's a shot at describing the problem informally.

I believe you that it's difficult. Thinking about it, I came to the conclusion, that one should seperate the pseudo-scientific or (purely) religious background from the mental techniques, basing on the usefulness (taking the utilitarian stance). One may believe in some religion or not, all pseudoscience may be (more or less) easily debunked, but nonetheless, the techniques they tried to 'incorporate' (or actually incorporated) may (or may not) be useful. Here is an excerpt of my edition, refutting the first claim of critics:

"Refutting part of this criticism one should, however, separate the pseudoscientific or religious background from the mental techniques, which may, or may not (depending on the individual character of each person) be useful and beneficial. Talking about the techniques, one should not employ the "one-size-fits-all" way of thinking, because human beings are so complicated and diverse, that there can be no panacea that works for everyone. "

What do you think about it?

I have also placed the rebuttal for another part of criticism (regarding to narcissism and self-centered stance).

"Refutting this criticism, one can say that the stronger an individual is, the more he (or she) may help others; and thus, self-development may give more power to one who wants to help others." Critto

Someone invents a great "mental technique" and begins to practice it regularly and somehow improves his/her life experience. The experience is so convincing that the individual tries to convince others to try out the technique and in order to do so, tries to find some kind of way to support the idea using "normal" scientific theories. This is the most flaky when the scientific theory does not explicitly support the technique at all, but some additional "interpretation" of the "meaning" of the scientific theory is tacked on in order to justify the technique. This really turns off skeptics and scientists because it is obvious that the technique promoter is abusing science in order to sell something. It smacks of mind-control, religion, dogma, quackery, etc.

Yes, I agree that it makes more harm than good, as (1) lying for any purpose is wrong and (2) it's counterproductive, as it may make both experts and the ordinary people turn away from the things that may help them. It's sad how many intelligent people are literally shooting themselves in their feet. Fortunately, at least the NLP movement is almost free of 'pseudoscience', as they openly state that they seek for useful techniques (utilitarian drive) and not for their pseudo-scientific explanation. As many of them are practising psychologists or psychiatrists, some try to explain those things using the scientific methods, but it's in their individual efforts, and not in the "mainstream" of NLP. Critto

However, if all the malappropriated science is jettisoned, and the technique is treated as a purely subjective way of approaching something that may work for some people some of the time, then it would be less likely to bother the skeptics. But now there are a couple of new problems.

It depends on what skeptics you are talking about: the scientific or the prejudiced :) For example, the Skeptic Dictionary categorized the speed reeding as 'junk science and pseudoscience' (link: http://skepdic.com/tijunk.html) , basing on the statement that some people claim to be able to read 10000 to 25000 words per minute(!). (the link: http://www.skepdic.com/speedreading.html ). Thus, they make an absurdal claim and then rebut it, making their argument a logical fallacy. But the usefulness of speed reading has been proven for many times, and recently, in Poland, there was even a tournament organised in speed reading. 2000-3000 thousand words per minute (with comprehension, of course) was an achievable thing out there. It doesn't, however, stop the 'skeptics' from debunking all speed reading as a useless myth. Well, to give them their due, they presented the dissenting voices of some people in the 'reader comments' section. And speed reading is a wonderful example of how the human minds differ: one person analyses the text while reading it (what takes much time), while another one 'loads it up to his/her memory', and only after this performs its analysis. I think it's no wrong to speculate that the second type of person is more likely to make use of speed reading. Critto

First of all, the optimistic scientist would say that the subjective qualities of the mental experience may currently be in a proto-scientific frontier, but that eventually those areas can and should submit to scientific inquiry.

Yes, and they will, but at least some methods must change. For example, because of the individual character of those techniques, it would be wrong to employ the same test as used for new chemical drugs, where the selected group of volunteers are provided with their medication; what works for one may not work for another one, even if he (she) is a volunteer. Rather, I think that the scientists should concentrate their research on the persons who, with failure or success, used those techniques. Critto

Secondly, the "true believer" agrees with this skeptical, yet optimistic, scientist on precisely that point. The believer thinks that somehow these techniques should be useful for everyone if they work for some people, because, after all, we all share the same basic genome and basic phenotypical attributes.

In my opinion, both of them employ the naive "one-size-fits-all" view, which disregards the human diversity and complexity. Actually, there is not, and can't be a panacea. Most of those techniques rely on the individual capabilities as the imagination (meant as the ability to imagine), ability to 'convince oneself' to something (necessary for affirmations to work), receptivity to hypnosis (it has been proven long ago that one may be more or less receptive, as well as non-receptive at all), and many more issues like that. Critto

And finally, there is a flaw I find in the way of thinking employed by some psychologists: they think that if something works, or is true for 99% of the population, it should work for everybody. Well, such a stance could only be true with regards to psychosociology, which relates to the 'macro-scale' issues; in the individual psychology, however, it is totally wrong as someone may belong to this 1% -- and those '99%' are the result of intentional overrating the issue by myself, as some psychological research make claims about 60-70% of the population, which leaves a very wide margin for the 'minorities'.

The other interesting thing is that there are a lot of underlying similarities amongst wide ranges of mental techniques. Many people who have tried a variety of things like meditation, hypnosis, Feldenkrais, NLP, and so on would probably be able to talk about some of these similarities using some fuzzy language (as I sometimes am prone to do) - like "awareness", "presence", "focus", "attention", "pattern", "habit", "freedom", "choice", "illusion" and so on.

Well, that was my shot at it. I think I can do better, but I wanted to get this discussion going. If someone understands what I am saying and agrees that the scientific skeptics have a point, and agrees that the way the article states it is rather poor, then I would love to see that someone give it a go. Thanks! --mporch 01:03, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Easy solution - I've removed the whole criticism section, which remained entirely unreferenced weasel worded original research. If you restore it - and it should be restored - you must cite sources. If you want to cite your own independently published works, do so, but Wikipedia is not a platform for primary publishing of your opinions. Rogerborg (talk) 09:22, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any purpose for having this segment about controversy. You don't need to 'convince the readers, only to inform them. Fridakahlofan (talk) 01:01, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

The July 20 addition

I'm a little concerned that the July 20 edit adding material refuting some criticism, and the other paragraph below in that section also refuting criticism, have a tone that becomes too conversational with the reader, as though we are giving the reader personal advice on how to balance competing claims. As has been expressed above on this page, I think there is a valid point being made here that needs to be phrased in a more objective, specific manner that ties into the subject of the movement and its critics, rather than drawing the reader aside into a sort of private conversation. --Gary D 21:08, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I agree. --mporch 22:56, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The "refutations" are also inadequate, which accounts in part for the propagandistic tone. The refutation of the claim that HP is pseudoscientific is, the way I read it, pseudoscientific itself. The argument seems to be that mental techniques work for some people but not others – well, who do they work for and who not? If you can't specify that with evidence you're just speculating. The second criticism is just speculation, as well. No evidence is presented. Anyway, the article needs a lot of work not just in that section but throughout. John FitzGerald 22:14, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I tried to take the POV out of the refutations. Saying something is true doesn't make it true. What needs to be supplied here are the results of properly controlled studies which support the contention that specific techniques are useful. I say specific techniques because of course evidence that all the techniques are useful is unlikely to available. John FitzGerald 02:14, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

The whole article is too conversationalFridakahlofan (talk) 01:01, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Roots/Esalen

I reverted the Roots section to what it was before the long passage about George Leonard was substituted for it, and then moved the encyclopedic part of the passage about Leonard to the Esalen section, where most of it belongs. I think I'll go back and add a note about Leonard to the Roots section, though. Anyway, much of the passage about Leonard was unencyclopedic, and more wasn't really necessary in this article because there is a separate article about him. The passage also smelt of copyright. I'm not saying that it's used without permission, but some reassurance is necessary.

Esalen also is clearly not part of the roots of the movement, which go back to the 40s. John FitzGerald 14:08, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Turned out the article about George Leonard was about another George Leonard, so I started an article about this one. John FitzGerald 14:22, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

And it turned out there was an article about this George Leonard, namely George Burr Leonard, so I redirected my attempt to it and added a couple of things. John FitzGerald 14:41, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Neither Esalen nor Leonard belong in the roots section. This segment is far too short and speaks more about other relative frameworks than about human potential sources.Fridakahlofan (talk) 01:01, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Personal Comment

It's amazing for me to have finally stumbled across this page and its tracing of this movement, having had a personal breakthrough do to self-actualization (a term I learned in high school Health) and the realization that my life's ultimate goals should be in awakening other people's untapped potential and encourage growth and education. I've never read a self-help book, nor had a person recommend any of this to me. My experience with all of this is largely from conclusions I drew myself, so it's interesting to find base for my personal beliefs in larger philosophies. Does anyone else feel like weighing in on personal comments about this movement? Cybertooth85 07:39, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

"happiness, creativity, and fulfillment"

If I'm interpretting the human potential movement properly, then words such as "happiness, creativity, and fulfillment" should not be used in such an unqualified manner. If I can tap my fullest potential, why would I be happy or fulfilled? Maybe I would become more unfulfilled and unhappy. These adjectives should be avoided in a neutral article.

subjectiveFridakahlofan (talk) 01:01, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

You're right about the realization of potential not necessarily producing happiness etc., but the point is that the human potential movement believes it does, so using those terms is not POV but simply a description of the movement. John FitzGerald 01:19, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

After having one small paragraph for introduction, a tiny paragraph for 'roots', a small paragraph and a quote about relation to other fields, we get 3 whole paragraphs on 'alleged failure to achieve goals'. Does this seem objective, unbiased and informative? No.

I don't see the point of having this section at all, or at least making much smaller relative to the other segments. Fridakahlofan (talk) 01:01, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Joshua Loth Liebman

Doesn't the human potential movement really go back to Joshua Loth Liebman and his bestseller Peace of Mind (1946)? John FitzGerald 01:19, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Plumb; A critique of the HPM

Hi all. For anyone who's interested, there is a major critique of the HPM by Plumb,L.D. 1993 ISBN 0-8153-0777-2. It looks at Maslow, Rogers, and Perls. I guess this may also apply well to the Humanistic Psychology article. There is an interesting element that says Edwin Schur identified some key elements: Openness to imediate experience;denigration of the intellect; and being "real" as opposed to playing a social role. ONe criticsim is that self-realization takes one away from social concerns too much. One argument says that Americans have never been strong on ocial consciousness. Thus, Schur states that the movement's popularity is rooted in complacency. Peter Martin referred to the HPM as the "new narcissism" and argued that these are the expressions of the "growing solipsism of and desperation of a beleaguered class". Martin doesn't say it is complacency, rather that it is neither simple greed nor moral blindness, but it is instead the unrealized shame of having failed the world and not knowing what to do about it. Christopher Lasch's analysis differs from both the prior. He argued that the HPM is the result of the warlike condidtions that pervade American society, from the dangers and uncertainty that surround us in abundance, and from the loss of confidence in the future. He says that the defensiveness concerning the "shallowness of society" gives rise to the "living here and now" so as not to seek value in the unreliable world outside of yourself. The tragedy being; these defensive responses to the loss of community contribute to the further denigration of society. The last line of the book is interesting "In the final analysis, the HPM constituted and anathema to the attempt to gain self-understanding ad to create an ethical society of persons. The HPM has apparently disintegrated, although aspects of the consciousness revolution will continue for some time" I can provide page numbers if folk are interested. Savoylettuce 05:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Another interesting source of criticism on the HPM is W. R. Coulson who studied/worked with Abraham Maslow and also worked with Carl Rogers for quite some time.

See

• Full hearts and Empty Heads: the price of certain recent programs in humanistic psychology Address of October 20, 1994, at a Conference on The Nature and Tasks of a Personalistic Psychology Franciscan University of Steubenville, Ohio U.S.A.
• "WE OVERCAME THEIR TRADITIONS, WE OVERCAME THEIR FAITH" Global Catholic Network. From Vol. 3, No. 1, January-February 1994 issue of "The Latin Mass."
• COULSON ON THE DARE DRUG PREVENTION PROGRAMME

Malangthon 01:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Ken Wilber

Some of the best and most balanced criticism of the HPM, looking at both its significant contributions as well as the not-so-hidden narcissistic underbelly that it often (and often unwittingly) supports is from Ken Wilber. See "Eye to Eye," "Sex, Ecology, Spirituality," and "The Eye of Spirit" (among others). He is quite critical of the HPM, despite being close with leaders in that field. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.46.182.104 (talk) 00:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC).

External Links

The following links do not comply with WP:EL standards:

• Personal Growth on Island Foundation

Should be avoided: 9 - Links to search engine and aggregated results pages

• Salerno, Steve (2005). SHAM: How the Self-Help Movement Made America Helpless. New York: Random House. ISBN 1-4000-5409-5.

Should be avoided: 9 - Links to search engine and aggregated results pages

Though it is looking for an ISBN, it is a search engine with potentially other off-topic results

The link does not direct to a specific article.

You give as the main reference a book which critisizes the human potential movement, plus 2 other obscure references. I would really like to know why 'the silva method' is mentioned at all, considering you have left out several of the major theorists.Fridakahlofan (talk) 01:01, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Lsi john 22:34, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

• However, that is actually standard practice as per the ISBN project on Wikipedia. Smee 22:44, 20 April 2007 (UTC).

Notes and References Note no.1 is inactive Note no.2 is Harper's Magazine; this is not a scholarly journal Reference (the only one) a book which is a critique of the HPM External link; Coulson; also an article which is a critique of HPM External link; Silva Method; looks like an advert.

There are no academic/scholarly/genuine references for HPM (as opposed to its critics) Fridakahlofan (talk) 16:02, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

POV Tags

I'm doing POV tag cleanup. Whenever an POV tag is placed, it is necessary to also post a message in the discussion section stating clearly why it is thought the article does not comply with POV guidelines, and suggestions for how to improve it. This permits discussion and consensus among editors. This is a drive-by tag, which is discouraged in WP, and it shall be removed. Future tags should have discussion posted as to why the tag was placed, and how the topic might be improved. Better yet, edit the topic yourself with the improvements. This statement is not a judgement of content, it is only a cleanup of frivolously and/or arbitrarily placed tags. No discussion, no tag.Jjdon (talk) 19:10, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Feynman in the "Psychobabble" paragraph

When the article invokes Feynman, it seems to be claiming that he somehow specifically debunked the concept that humans possess potential. Reading the content of his speech, however, he only discusses his visit to Esalen to recall an incident where he witnesses a couple of naked hippies practicing reflexology, and that it perplexed him. What is the aim of an author who falsely invokes an undisputedly credible person to discredit something? Despite the hippies who may have tried to push some analog of the idea that we can be something more, you can't deny that humans have demonstrated great potential throughout history, or the parallel theme that whenever someone does this, inexplicably there are always these people waiting in the wings with baseball bats anxious to beat them down. Whatever your agenda, please leave Mr. Feynman out of this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.66.187.132 (talk) 02:20, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I removed the section. — goethean ॐ 02:38, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Someone seems to have put it back. Ursus-deningeri2 (talk) 11:38, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Where? -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 15:32, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

New untitled post moved from page top

I made a general enquiry about editing this page and was advised to 'be bold'. After making some minor edits, I find that they have all been reversed and I am being accused of vandalism. My first point is that this article is not within the scope of religion. The human potential movement is based in Humanistic Psychology. Secondly, the entire article is very subjective and reads as a critique of the human potential movement. Also, most of the 'theorists' being discussed were not the founders of this movement, nor were they at the forefront. The human potential movement is most certainly not part of the new age movement. Initially some of the leaders of the new age movement tried to associate themselves within the human potential movement in the hope of gaining some credibility.

Also, I don't understand why this article has been rated as 'low importance'? The request for verification of sources is dated June 2010. It is obvious to me, as a professional in the field of Psychology that this article was written by someone who does not have a solid theoretical foundation in this topic. It also seems to me that to spend huge amounts of time trying to edit an article which is so poorly researched is pointless. Most of the important concepts used within the HPM are not mentioned, or skimmed over inadequately.Fridakahlofan (talk) 01:01, 1 November 2010 (UTC) There also appears to be some confusion between 'self-help methods' and human potential movement. The article needs to be re-written, not as a critique but as a factual, unbiased, fully referenced report of the human potential movement.How long has this discussion been going? 2004??? Imagine someone who knows nothing or very little about the human potential movement and regards wikipedia as a reference site. Would they be well informed after reading the article Fridakahlofan (talk) 01:01, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your comments. Please understand that Wikipedia is an all-volunteer project, and may not have any experts on the topic of HPM. Articles are vandalized often, and that vandalism often consists of section blanking. Your edits, which were not vandalism, also blanked a section. So perhaps you can understand the concern regarding your edits. I suggest that you add material to the article and/or improve sections rather than simply removing material, however faulty that material may be. — goethean ॐ 16:21, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

It is great to have you here Fridakahlofan. Please make any changes you believe will improve the article but please support any additions by citing a textbook page number or review article, so readers can confirm the information is sound.

• To create a book citation, find the book in Google Books, enter its URL into here, and paste the result directly into your text.
• To create an article citation, enter its doi into your text between <ref>{{Cite doi| and }}</ref>, or its PMID between <ref>{{Cite pmid| and }}</ref>, and the citation will be created a few minutes after you save your edit. Search the source article to find its doi. To get an article's PMID, search for its title here, and the PMID will appear below the article's abstract.

Anthony (talk) 10:23, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Removal of Comparisons to Other Fields

I removed a section in the article that had been unsourced since 2008. It was attempting to make a comparison between the human potential movement and the New Age Movement. I looked for sources for this, but could not find anything that was not a Christian Website or author warning about the dangers of many things "non'christian- hardly reliable sources. There was a sourced statement about narcissism that I put in the Authors and Essayists section. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 20:04, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Frankl & MasloW

Is it really right or fair to say that Viktor Frankl and Abraham Maslow were "proponents" or otherwise associated with the HPM? Certainly their findings are cited by its founders and adherents, so they have been "associated" with it in a retrospective sense, but as used here it seems to imply that they were actively involved in it, which I don't feel to be correct. Galileo and Newton laid a foundation for physics that later led to the study of subatomic particles, but neither was in any direct way "associated" with the field. 75.216.126.16 (talk) 15:35, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps two separate lists would be useful? Or renaming this list?

On a similar note, I would like to add Ida P. Rolf to this list, as she was an influential figure in the HPM, but to say she was a "proponent" - well, I'm just not sure if you have to be a cheerleader for the whole movement or if you can be steadfastly promoting radial change in one area to qualify. Any objections to adding her? --Karinpower (talk) 05:56, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Good call on Ida P. Rolf. I'm also concerned about the description of Maslow's hierarchy. This is often misinterpreted and misquoted. He didn't say that you needed to fulfill your physiological needs to progress to the 'higher' levels. The evidence is pretty clear that this isn't the case and he knew that - many 'enlightened' beings have experienced an aesetic lifestyle, and taken to extreme this interpretation is bordering on racism because it implies that people in low-income countries can't become self-actualised. Ursus-deningeri2 (talk) 20:25, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Criticism & Status?

Most of the information in the article refers to the 1960s and 70s. Although the article uses the present tense for HPM, a reader might conclude that this movement is historical. In that case, the reader would expect information about the end or dissolution of the movement. The only thing in the article that even implies the existence of the movement past the 1970s is the existence of a "Notable Proponent" who was born in 1960 and the fact that the footnote source for the Virginia Satir quote "We are at a crossroads" is to a 2011 web article. Then again, that article also quotes Abraham Lincoln. The article indicates the Virginia Satir quote is from 1984.

So, if this is an existing movement, there needs to be something about it. Otherwise it looks like HPM was only a 1960s-70s phenomenon. There should also be some information on the size of the HPM at its maximum, an indication of when that was, and some indication of the size/importance of the HPM at present.

Finally, there is not much about the movement itself other than what is in the introduction, its "roots," a couple of paragraphs about some authors & essayists [the title doesn't give an indication of their relationship to the HPM], and a list of Notable Proponents. Since there isn't much on what HPM is about, there is, of course, nothing about criticism of HPM. How was it received at the time? What is its relevance today? Does the HPM exist outside of Esalen? Ileanadu (talk) 05:19, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Summary added to Roots section

I added a couple of sentences to the article yesterday [1], and they were promptly reverted with the edit summary: "first sentence of source and edit are identical. Second sentence is an assemblage: partly copyvio, partly misrepresenting what the source says."

It's not clear to me that either of these reasons are justified: as I understand it, one or two sentences quoted are fair use not copyvio. And the second sentence is also an exact quote, so I'm not sure why that editor called it an "assemblage". I've re-added it, making clear that it's a quote, and attributing in the text as well as the ref. Any thoughts? DaveApter (talk) 10:41, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Apparently you partly (the copyvio-part) understood what the problem was: you basically restored your previous edit, this time with quotation marks added. Nevertheless, I have reverted your restored edit again. This 'quotation' is corrupt: it is nowhere to be found in the source ([2], p.286-288). The misrepresentation is now attributed to Puttick, what makes it an instance of source manipulation. I would humbly recommend to you to study the relevant rules and guidelines. Think twice before you reply you have done so: obviously you violated the relevant rules. Theobald Tiger (talk) 10:54, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

See also here. Theobald Tiger (talk) 12:04, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

The quote is taken from page 399 of my copy of the book (Lion Publishing 2004), and is exact. Perhaps an apology and a reinstatement of my edit is in order? DaveApter (talk) 16:03, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

So the copyvio was even more serious than I already thought: you had simply copied a section from the book. I will check it and if you are right, I will apologize and reinstate the quote (quotations in encyclopedic articles are not recommended anyway). You have halfheartedly apologized for the copyvio on your talk page. I'll leave it at that. Theobald Tiger (talk) 16:20, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I have reinstated the quote, for it is correct, and I apologize to DaveApter for having said that the quote is corrupt. I had compared the quote with another text of Elizabeth Puttick, and I was wrong. Theobald Tiger (talk) 08:05, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, that's gracious. DaveApter (talk) 08:27, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Sources not reliable

I removed two refs in the 'Social influences' section. Both of these were opinion pieces published on partisan websites which clearly do not meet Wikipedia's criteria as Reliable Sources. Unless reliable sources can be found to substantiate the dubious assertions in that section, perhaps it should be excised? DaveApter (talk) 12:19, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

I see that this removal was reverted. Not only do the sources not meet WP:RS, but they relate to opinions rather than facts, and violate the neutral point of view policy. DaveApter (talk) 10:08, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

To: DaveApter (talk)

I was sorry. I did not know your discussion. I gave a wrong order of references on the former description. Please read the corrected references once again. Both sources are rather regulated well than some others.

Human Potential Movement: Difference between revisions. Revision as of 17:33, 29 January 2016 (edit) (undo) --Sérgio Itigo (talk) 17:19, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for that acknowledgement. My main point is this: the Wikipedia policies on WP:RS and WP:NPOV are very clear and crucial to the integrity of this site as a credible encyclopedia. While the term 'Human Potential Movement' covers a wide range of concepts and activities (some of which are certainly pretty eccentric), the opinions that it is connected with Multi-Level Marketing or primarily associated with money-making are marginal in the extreme. The suggestion that it is connected with the 'Hippie' phenomenon may have a little more support, but most commentators regard the connection as very tenuous. When I removed the contentious sentences from your original edit, I did leave the first one in that section, as the Los Angeles Times is certainly a valid source. However I did make a minor edit to clarify the point that the item was establishing an opinion, whereas your wording conveyed the impression that it was being asserted as a fact. The other content is referenced to the Apologetics website which is not even remotely a reliable source for Wikipedia purposes. DaveApter (talk) 10:11, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

It is a subjective problem. As there is this reference, I can leave many descriptions, but want to leave the quotation of the UK Apologetics. I think that references in admiration of HPM is more doubtful. The sources of information are the same person. --Sérgio Itigo (talk) 18:27, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

TheFreeDictionary.com website is not a reliable source for Wikipedia purposes either. Please spend some time reading and trying to understand Wikipedia policies. I do not understand what you mean by your remark above: "The sources of information are the same person." Could you explain please? Thanks. DaveApter (talk) 21:42, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

The current Notes of No. 3 and 4 is the same, and there are not page numbers. In addition, each description of Abraham Maslow and George Leonard of "Authors and essayists" does not have reference. Why do you make only my description a problem? Is it because UK Apologetics is Evangelical Conservative? The New York Times supported a New Age mystic and establishmentist woman. That is more fanatic, and good sense is doubted. They may sell even the earth with newspapers. If NY Times is reliable, you should trust UK Apologetics. --Sérgio Itigo (talk) 18:10, 2 February 2016 (UTC) 　

This nothing to do with what I do or do not "trust"; it is a matter of complying with Wikipedia policies. Apologetics is a self-published website. Please look at wp:Identifying_reliable_sources#Self-published_sources_.28online_and_paper.29. If you think that other assertions in the article need references to support them, you can add a 'citation needed' tag and probably someone will find a reference; if they don't in a month or so, you can remove the item. DaveApter (talk) 17:27, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I understood it. I am troublesome, but edit it again. There are plenty of similar sources. --Sérgio Itigo (talk) 17:49, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Roberto Assagioli

Could Roberto Assagioli be added to the list of proponents? The article on Assagioli does say that he was a big name in humanistic and transpersonal psychology. What is more, he was the founder of psychosynthesis.Vorbee (talk) 21:02, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Social Influence

In its current form, I find this section doesn't adequately explain the connections between the hippie counter-culture and Western interest in Indian religions / the emergence of New Religious Movements.

"HPM was regarded by some as being related to psychedelic culture such as hippies and Summer of Love. According to author Andrew Grant Jackson, George Harrison's adoption of Hindu philosophy and Indian instrumentation in his songs with the Beatles in the mid 1960s, together with the band's highly publicised study of Transcendental Meditation, 'truly kick-started' the Human Potential Movement. It had not been defined what was 'human potentialities'. They themselves came to be called not only 'New Age' but also 'new religion'."'

I don't find any of this follows logically and is proven. How exactly did these events "kick-start" the Human Potential Movement? Did Transcendental Meditation offer a definition of human potentialities? I think that is implied with the current text, but it isn't clear -- and I also think stating how TM defined the term (if it did) is crucial. I also find the last sentence to be a bit irrelevant... it seems to be more about hippies or adherents of TM than it does HPM.

In short, the connections aren't sufficiently made, and the block quotation that follows doesn't resolve this problem either. Actually, Elizabeth Puttick's synopsis of HPM contradicts the statements in this section, arguing HPM influenced New Religious Movements rooted in Eastern religion, rather than the other way around. Mark Stein's article in the LA Times also doesn't support the arguments in this section; it simply states San Francisco is the capital of the Human Potential Movement as a continuation of the city's openness to counter-cultural movements, but doesn't state there is a direct, influential connection between HPM and the hippie scene of the 1960's. I do not have access to the two books cited.

Correcting these issues is extremely important, as there is a long legacy of individualism and self-improvement in American culture dating back at least to the Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin. BornOn8thOfJuly (talk) 02:21, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

HPM in Europe

The Section "In Europe" cites "Implementing European Union Education and Training Policy" for the claim that there is a rising interesting in HPM in Europe. However, I could not find any direct relation to HPM in the source; the word "human potential" appears once in the book, in the title of a coordination program and neither do research hypothesis refer to it or related concepts. So, while it is plausible that HPM influenced EU programs, I could not establish it via the source, so the section might rather be original research -- Simulo (talk) 09:50, 21 February 2024 (UTC)