|WikiProject Psychology||(Rated Stub-class)|
|This article is written in British English (colour, realise, travelled), and some terms used in it are different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.|
there are two opponent process theries given by two different psychologists herring has given opponent process theaory related to color vision and solomon has given the theory related to oppnent process in emotion kindly verify the content thank you ---shrishail
Colleague in LEDE can't be so.
Look at their dates, Karl Ewald Konstantin Hering (August 5, 1834 – January 26, 1918) Richard Lester Solomon (October 2, 1918 - October 12, 1995) They were not colleagues as they not even alive at the same time. I don't know the best word here. Fromthehill (talk) 06:07, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Some confusion in the article: Opponent process theory.
The article starts off, without preamble, with a section describing a theory of visual (colour) perception already desribed in a separate WP article titled Opponent Process. This article's header even 'disambiguates' the two and points to the second article, and vice verca.
It then goes on to a second section discussing a behavioural theory developed by Solomon, described in the WP biographical article on him as an "opponent-process theory of emotion."
Then at the end of the second section, it seems to attempt an undeclared synthesis of these two theories into the later works of Hurvich & Jameson, and Ronald C. Blue & Wanda E. Blue; the description of which reads (to me at least) to be a neurological theory that explains the findings/contentions of the previous two bodies of work (on vision and behaviour.) A distinction between the work of these two partnerships is not made clear.
Now, my suggestions ...
1.) The easy bit: at very least a new section should be created at the introduction of Hurvich & Jameson (usw) as this is a whole new ... well, section.
2.) The hard bit: The two sections, up to the introduction of Hurvich etc., do not seem to me to warrant the level of discussion that they are given here. I would contend that they are conceptually different and ante-cedent to the subject "Opponent-Proccess Theory". Being both precursor and examples of the latter work (Hurvich etc) by all means they can, perhaps even should, be mentioned. But the article is, I think, about the latter work, (that which I'm suggesting be at least a new, third, section).
I could do the 'create a new section' bit, but I don't want to; because I think the whole article needs major re-working to re-focus it on the last section, and I'm going to throw that open for discussion here.
In summary, my argument is that article sets out to discuss the "Opponent Process Theory", (note the capitals!), and spends most of it's time on some opponent-process theories. That's where I think it lost its way.
I hope this reasonably coherent. If I haven't explained it well enough let me know.
Over to you.
- Very good analysis. I agree with everything you say. However, I cannot do the job either - I don't know the first thing about opponent-process theory or theories. Lova Falk talk 13:23, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Removed Copy-Edit Tag - Added Tags
I have copy-edited the article, and have removed the copy-edit tag, but the article is confusing, as noted by previous comments, and the lead is confusing. I can do many kinds of editing, but, in this context, to paraphrase Bones on Star Trek, "Dammit, Jim! I'm a copy-editor, not a psychologist!" Robert McClenon (talk) 02:25, 24 June 2013 (UTC)