Talk:Psychology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Cscr-former.svg Psychology is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
March 16, 2007 Featured article candidate Not promoted
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Psychology (Rated B-class, Top-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.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.5 / Vital / Core
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Taskforce icon
This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.

Scientific[edit]

The Psych deals with person as person: psychology entails understanding the underlying mechanisms in which produce human behavior, consciousness, perception, and sensation. The goal of psychology is to understand why humans respond to external or internal stimuli in a particular way. Many psychologists would agree that "research takes place within the context of Philosophy (Nemeroff & Craighead, 2004, p.750). There are various disciplines within the field of psychology including biological psychology, neuropsychology,social psychology, and physiological psychology that attempts to answer why humans behavior the way they do? It has less to do with the spiritual aspect of human behavior & nature. How can Psychology be considered a science when it deals also with that which is not scientific: i.e. behavior ? My understanding is that their are subdivisions of psychology that attempt to explain human phenomena and conscious aware that humans are innately are born inherited. It takes vigorous testing and experimentation in attempt to explain human behavior and our ability to consciously aware of ourselves(conscious X^2)(Carlson,2003). In addition to understanding the complexity of human behavior; psychology also attempts to understand abnormal behavior through observation,experimental, and bio-psychological psychology. Also, psychology seeks to find therapeutic interventions in which help ameliorate those that suffer from mental illness. Vigorous research and experimentation is conducted in order to find clinical interventions that enable individuals to successfully cope with their psychology/psychiatric disorder(s). It is worthy are psychology and psychiatry are intertwined; meaning that you most psychological illness are related to same physiological or neurochemical abnormalities (Craighead & Nemeroff,2004). Therefore, mental health treatments should include both psychiatric treatments in adjunct with psychological interventions. (. (I.e. I understand it to be scientific only in its relation to studying mental functions (the neurological, aspect, the brain etc.) while I would leave the study of behavior to a different paradigm) Thanks. Alan347 (talk) 19:19, 3 June 2010 (UTC) Please i'm not so sure of this.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.32.63.39 (talk) 13:31, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

The scientific method can be used as long as you are able to measure/quantify what you're studying. Behaviour can be measured, meaning that the scientific method can be applied to it. Zorander22 (talk) 15:43, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

The scientific method is a tool often used while performing science. Use of the scientific method does not make something a science though. Let me give an example:

Ask a Question: Do the number of babies born with a particular astrological sign control gay rights during that year?

Research/Test:

Babies born during 2003

      Aries    334,893   8.19%
     Taurus    347,647   8.50%
     Gemini    348,053   8.51%
     Cancer    342,726   8.38%
        Leo    381,064   9.32%
      Virgo    363,278   8.88%
      Libra    349,643   8.55%
    Scorpio    345,045   8.44%
Sagittarius    312,977   7.65%
  Capricorn    314,750   7.70%
   Aquarius    327,456   8.01%
     Pisces    322,418   7.88%

      Total  4,089,950 100.00%

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/statab/natfinal2003.annvol1_16.pdf

Same sex ruling says that anti-same-sex marriage laws are unconstitutional in Massachusetts.

Hypothesis: From the data it appears that a higher birth rate of Leos causes better same-sex civil rights.

Report: I am reporting this to you.

Retest: You are free to retest my results with your own data.


^ This doesn't mean that astrology is a science, even though it uses the scientific method. I haven't seen anything that convinces me that psychology meets the definition of science. 207.219.3.222 (talk) 18:06, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Although I attempted to explain why your example is horribly flawed and would never be considered scientific by either psychologists or any other scientist, the talk page of wikipedia articles is not for philosophical debates. Please keep comments related to the content of the article. -Nicktalk 21:21, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
I don't understand; so every books are wrong when they says that is a science? ps: as soon as possible i will write the title of these manuals (if if it is not against the rules, but I don't think so) Psico pp (talk) 11:12, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Psychology is not an absolutely a science. Wikipedia's definition of a science is a systematic way of building and organizing knowledge in testable ways. If you have ever done psychological research you would know this is a valid definition. However, the third variable is a common confound in psychology and that is why most research is correlational not causation. However, the same can be said of many physical science paradigms such as the theory of electron orbitals or evolution. Those things can't be "proven" but are the fields that study them any less scientific? I say no and I say psychology is a science. * This is my first post ever so I hope I didn't step on any toes (noob :) ) Zzaffuto118 (talk) 20:29, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

There is a ton of experimental research in psychology. It's not the case that most of it is correlational. The difficulty of clean measurement in behavioral science has made it one of the most rigorous fields there are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.5.142.47 (talk) 05:25, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I think it`s im important to note somewhere, best the beginning, that the question if psychology really is science is debated, http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jul/13/news/la-ol-blowback-pscyhology-science-20120713 could f.e. be used as a source. I disagree with the poster above saying things that cant be proven are still scientific, first of all, the examples are very questionable, e.g. i do no understand the problem with electron orbitals, since they are simply the solution to the Schrödingerequation and that they are is mathematically proveable. Also orbitals can be shown experimentally via effects concerning them. The evolution example also doesn`t work either, since it`s a scientific theory, that is based on fossil evidence but still is not considered the "whole truth", just think of the relativley new field of epigenetics, proving how classical evolution theory was wrong in some regards (there is an influence of the enviroment on genes of a human an this influence can be inherited. Well I´m not saying the article should say that it is not a science, though one can very well argue that, since beeing able to prove something is highly important and even some physic fields-like string theory- have to make a hard point arguing they are still science,smth may be proveable in a specific mathematical set up but it may very well never be proveable that this set up really discribes realtiy. Therefore I would say that the article shouldn`t call it science or not, but should mention the debate about it. I find this especially important since psychologist are described as "social, behavioral, or cognitive scientist" in the beginning. Can a homeopath also call himself a scientist? OK, there is a differnce in plausibility since homeopathy has none, though again debatable for some psychological ideas, but both share the common ground that physical evidence can not be given, though in psychologys case with advanced techniques and biological and physical knowhow it may very well be prooveable some day. One can argue that is the day it truely science. But this is not soemthing that should be included in an wikipedia, the existing debate about science or not is in my opinion. TP 85.177.252.167 (talk) 15:47, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

This is a pretty poor argument. Lets start with the definition of Science from a dictionary (oxford dictionary).

"The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment:"

As you can see, branches of Psychology that do not study the physical world are not science at all. That leaves us with the parts of psychology that are quantitative, such as mice going through mazes (quantitative psychology) and neuro-psychology. In order to follow the scientific method, all observations must be objective. A confidence interval for statistical analysis must reasonably exceed chance (to the minimum requirement of 3 standard deviations) to be scientific (objective). Psychology fails here, with no observations over 95% CI (two standard deviations). So, psychology sits between gay conversion therapy (not science) and psycho-biological dysfunction (pseudoscience). As long as Psychology contains not-science at all, it's probably wrong to call the whole "science" anyway. A better choice is to call it simply a "social science where appropriate". Flyingducks (talk) 10:49, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Pseudoscience?[edit]

Shouldn't psychology be labelled a pseudoscience rather than a science? 85.210.35.84 (talk) 16:32, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I can't tell if you are trolling or being serious, so I will give you the benefit of the doubt here, but will keep it brief. The answer to your question is no. Psychology is a basic and applied behavioral science. It is a mainstream scientific discipline studied at most if not all of the major world universities. Psychologists are often some of the strongest critics of pseudo-scientific thinking. There were incorrect and even bizarre ideas claimed early in the discipline's history, but that is the case in the history of nearly all sciences. A scientific discipline can be recognized by whether or not incorrect ideas are retained or scrapped when they are challenged by evidence. Psychology has unequivocally sided with the latter. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 22:32, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Psychology should be labeled as pseudo-science unless references to scientific confirmation of all its subtheories are provided. In particular, the article cites dream interpretation as part of the "science". Please provide a reference to falsifiable evidence supporting that theory. Adam Sikora
The article appears to mention no universally accepted psychological facts or laws and refers to six quite distinct "schools". This is quite different from the situation in most sciences where there is a consensus over the main body of facts and laws and disagreement only over details. Isn't this closer to the situation in astrology and alternative medicine than that in astronomy and biology? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.71.43.37 (talk) 04:47, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
See psychophysics for examples of scaling laws. See string theory for counter-examples to your claims about scientific consensus. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 15:12, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Schools of psychology were simply different ways of thinking about what the "mind" is (a topic too abstract for any science to achieve consensus). You'll notice they are a part of the History section. The actual scientific findings of psychology are too numerous to mention in one place, which is why there is a list of sub-fields of psychology. Within those articles are hundreds of examples of consistently and scientifically observed psychological principles and effects. Keep in mind that unlike biology, chemistry and physics, psychology's primary interests involve the thoughts feelings and behaviors of humans, which are wildly inconsistent.-Nicktalk 17:00, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
In fact, since the comparison was made between psychology and physics, I went and looked at that page. I don't see a list of universally accepted facts of physics there either. For those of that know at least some physics, I do see pointers towards, and mention of, accepted physical facts, such as E = mc2 (in the box at the top), lightning is an electric current, etc (actually, many of the best examples are in the figure captions). Similarly, when those who know at least some psychology look at the main text of the psychology article, they will see things like Maslow's hierarchy of needs, the stages of memory, etc. These are generally agreed upon principles within their domains of psychology. The complaint about domains is no more relevant here than it is in physics: In the same way that physics can be broken down into many sub-fields, with distinct areas of investigation and distinct methods, psychology can (and should) also be broken down into distinct sub-fields, with distinct areas of investigation and methods. In the case of psychology, these sub-fields are also generally tied to different historical antecedents, so Schwnj's comments above are correct. And, as in physics, the links between certain concepts within different subfields are still unclear. Certain phenomena like wave/particle duality (not to pretend for a second that *that's* completely settled!) within physics fit within quantum mechanics, but are also believed to be linked to cosmological phenomena at the largest levels. However, there is no grand unified theory (GUT) and so the findings are not entirely integrated. Similarly, questions of self-fulfillment and personality are appropriate to discuss within certain time-scales and certain frameworks of the individual's mental life. Other things, like how people remember and forget are appropriate within a cognitive framework. Psychologists believe in some way that the two are related (for example, cognitive dissonance, wherein someone's memory is retrospectively colored by the choices they've made), but we are similarly far from a single psychological GUT. In the Kuhn/Popper vein, the key thing is experimental methods that permit falsifiability, and cumulative knowledge base. In this respect, psychology is no less a science than other fields. This is one place where psychology has made great progress in the past 50 years; the quantification of behavior. However, the complexity of the phenomena in question makes it substantially more difficult to run a single experiment that will completely and utterly falsify a particular theory. Despite these challenges, psychology, through the use of repeated experimentation, replication and linkages with other domains (like neuroscience and genetics) has built a large body of agreed upon facts, a larger body of agreed upon phenomena with more controversial interpretations, and an even larger set of research questions. Given that Popper and Kuhn were writing more than 40 years ago, their opinions of psychology at the time do not necessarily reflect the current state of psychology today - bearing in mind that psychology has been around as a topic of investigation for about 120 years, maybe 150 years max, this means that a substantial proportion of the history of psychology has occurred after these classic philosophers of science wrote anything about psychology. Edhubbard (talk) 17:46, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
One of my lecturers (in history and philosophy of science: distinguishing science from pseudoscience) made the argument that psychology exhibits characteristics of pseudoscience. One the the examples he used was EMDR and cited Popper's and Bunge's criterion for distinguishing science from pseudoscience. Critically, EMDR adherents (typically psychologists) use ad hoc maneuvers to avoid refutation and continue to practice it despite its failure in empirical testing.[1] "From this Popperian [3] perspective, Herbert et al. (2000) have accused Francine Shapiro and other EMDR advocates of practicing pseudoscience. According to these critics, EMDR mavens do not behave like real scientists, who, according to Popperian dogma, derive bold conjectures from their theories and then relentlessly seek theoretical refutation by exposing these conjectures to risky empirical tests." According to McNally, EMDR (and many other what he calls "wacky therapies") continues to be advocated and used by those with Ph.Ds in clinical psychology despite lack of empirical validation. If EMDR remains popular with clinical psychologists (in clinical training and practice) and clinical psychology is a paradigmatic subfield of psychology. Then, some parts of psychology exhibits characteristics of pseudoscience. This is based on the premise the psychology is defined by what psychologists do. After setting up this argument the lecturer admitted that the term pseudoscience in clinical psychology is inflammatory and hotly debated (see Richard NcNally's article: [2]). Returning the to EMDR example, even if pseudoscience is often practiced in clinical psychology and promoted by those with Ph.Ds in clinical psychology it does not necessarily make psychology a pseudoscience. The term pseudoscience is thrown around in debate over sociobiology and evolutionary psychology to dismiss opponent theories. It really does not add much to the debate there except to raise emotions which is a logical fallacy by itself. Similarly, calling psychology or one of its subfields or theories pseudoscientific adds little to the debate. Its little more than emotive name-calling. NcNally argues that rather than dismissing a theory or practice as pseudoscience (or an individual theorist as pseudoscientist), we should ask its adherents, How do you know it works? What is the empirical evidence for it? ----Action potential talkcontribs 08:54, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
This seems more trolling/political than completely earnest. Most people label psychology a science or social science, so it would be uncharacteristically aggressive to label at pseudoscience. But I strongly believe the Criticisms section should make the case for psychology being a pseudoscience much stronger. The issue is not that hypothesis tests get misused, for example. Criticisms run much deeper than that and the article fails to reflect that. E.g. the use of hypothesis testing at all as taught to doctoral students is controversial to anyone who knows math or stat.69.255.216.161 (talk) 17:59, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

(undent) AP, your comments made me think of two books that I like quite a lot by Michael Shermer, The Borderlands of Science and Why People Believe Weird Things. In WPBWT he talks about the famous N ray example, and how people within physics believed that a new form of radiation had been identified for a period. He describes many of the things that made N rays somewhat questionable, what made smart people believe them, and how eventually they were shown to not exist. I think that the lesson here is not that a scientific enterprise never has a dead-end (even one believed by many people) but rather that there is a method for eventually replicating and verifying results from a field, and failing that, to purge them from the field. Physics has its stories like the N rays, or more recently, failed attempts at cold fusion, but nobody takes such false starts and says, "physics isn't a science!" because of them. Somehow, people seem much more willing to suggest that psychology isn't a science because of false starts like EMDR and the fact that a group of clinicians refuse to accept the evidence against it. Edhubbard (talk) 10:12, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I think that many people are willing to suggest that psychology is not a science due to significant differences in the practice and practical tools that psychology has produced in comparison to sciences such as physics and chemistry. There is not a single profound or remarkably useful tool that psychology has produced, and those who identify as psychologists have fantastic disagreements as to basic definitions used in the discipline. The evidence for, and the practical uses of, modern psychological tools is not on the level of a nuclear reactor, photovoltaic cells, differential equations, or an internal combustion engine; it is on the level of herbal medicine: there may be significant effects, but those researching them do not possess the mathematical models or computational tools to provide proof as to the causation of any observed effects.216.96.230.68 (talk) 14:21, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm coming into this conversation a bit late, but I'm in the middle. I agree with the general consensus that calling psychology in blanket form a pseudo-science is too aggressive. But I think the criticisms section does a nice job of noting the weaknesses of psychology, even vis-a-vis other fields, and of course there has been some discussion of this now in the literature (e.g. Simmons et al., 2011) as well. I think though, the willingness of psychologists themselves to discuss weaknesses in their field sets it aside from pseudo-science. I think that's why we have the designation of "soft science" or "social science"...its distinct from the "hard sciences" but not blatantly pseudo-scientific either. Avalongod (talk) 16:17, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

All major orginizations consider psychology a science! Leavesteps789 (talk) 04:14, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

There has been some recently published research indicating psychology may in fact have some of the hallmarks of a pseudoscience, I would strongly consider adding to Category:Pseudoscience if this can be confirmed on a larger scale. 3AlarmLampscooter (talk) 06:32, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
That's a horrible misunderstanding and misapplication of an article that primarily focuses on (a) the relationships between p-value, effect size, and sample size especially in smaller studies and (b) publication bias favoring studies with larger (and perhaps overestimated) effect sizes. ElKevbo (talk) 08:33, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
I can't argue there is anything close L. Ron Hubbard levels of pseudoscience occurring, but I think (a) and (b) taken together reflect poorly on the scientific integrity of the field. 3AlarmLampscooter (talk) 16:54, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

The American Psychological Association is the largest and oldest Psychology body, yet it refuses to discipline it's members who participate in torture, nor discipline psychology institutions engaged in torture. Psychiatry has also been accused of systemic torture by the UN. Psychology still supports gay conversion therapy, a concept legitimatized by certain religious groups. While one could argue the organizations themselves are corrupt, Psychology itself is not a member of the Natural Sciences, and yet all reputable dictionaries define Science as "the study of the natural world". If Psychology identifies itself as a "Hard Science" instead of a "Soft Science"; isn't that the difference between Economics and Creationism? Just a few thoughts. --Flyingducks (talk) 07:47, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Psychologist needed[edit]

I was working on articles about physical attractiveness and beauty and kept writing about how symmetrical shapes are seen as beautiful and attractive, but there was no explanation about why this was the case. Why are symmetrical faces beautiful? I could not find any good explanations in secondary sources. I do not have JStor and I am not a biologist or psychologist. But after puzzling about this for a stretch I came up with a brief tentative theory which I wrote about here. Seems right to me. I'm hoping scientists who know about this stuff could tell me whether it's right or wrong, whether it's old or new, and if they could write a paper about it, or do experiments about it, and that way I could quote them and put this stuff in Wikipedia. A PhD student and fellow Wikipedian named Moleke suggested that this stuff isn't new but biologists working on animal studies have come across parts of these ideas already, but it still isn't clear to me what is known or right.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:24, 5 January 2012 (UTC) --Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:55, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh my god. I found Death the Kid. I bet your favorite number is 8, too. (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.159.168.35 (talk) 15:01, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

References[edit]

Craighead,W.E. & Nemeroff, C.B(2004) The concise corsini encyclopedia of psychology and behavioral science(3rd):NY.NY.John Wiley and Sons. Just to let you know I made some changes that I thought would be helpful in completing this assignment;

Critical Psychology[edit]

With a healthy amount of expertise, I've never heard of critical psychology, except for the wikipedia article. It appears that none of the supporting literature (from the separate Critical Psychology article is in peer reviewed journals (just books, and conference proceedings). Perhaps a link to this obscure topic is justified, but it doesn't seem to deserve a summary on this page.Jj1236 (talk) 19:15, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I second Jj's comment. See Wikipedia:Notability. Ostracon (talk) 11:50, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Does a healthy amount of expertise mean you have a) advanced degrees, b) postgraduate teaching experience c) research experience, d) conference presentation experience, e) involvement in the APA and at least one non-US international body, f) more than a decade's worth of involvement in the field, g) a licence to practise in one of the applied fields, h) practised in more than one of the APA divs, and i) practised on more than one continent; If one can't say yes to at least four of these one would want to revise one's definition of healthy. I can say yes to all bar one of these criteria, I have 20 years experience in the discipline and I would say I have a healthy knowledge in two of over 50 APA divs, but hardly a healthy knowledge of psychology. The discipline is not reducible to one introductory text in one language authored by people from one race on one continent.
The reasons you've never heard of it, it's a) recently international - late 1900s - but mature in some countries, b) predicated on marxist ideas that are not popular in the US, c) has a wide following in socialist and European countries but is unlikely to be included in US textbooks which tend to dominate knowledge production in this field, d) linked to the broader critical theory movement see http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/critical-theory/, e) literature is predominantly in Russian (100 years worth), Spanish, German and French very little of which has been traslated into English, f) there is some confusion between the notion of theories-critical-of-psychology (like Szasz, Masson, Rollo May, on the one hand and Seligman et al on another) and critical psychology (the work of psychologists like Vygotsky), g) the wiki article is dismally inadequate.
Read the ridiculous wiki article on cultural historical psychology that some amateur has classified as a sub-field of developmental psychology probably because the only reference they could find was an English translation of a Russian book called Cognitive Development and therefore thought that the entire field was restricted to that one book. The article refers to an alternative paradigm of psychology that does not follow the rules of pragmatism that dominate in US thinking. If the article on evolutionary psychology consists of 15K words then this article should have at least 20K.

The field of psychology is vast. Only the main outlines can possibly be included in such a general article as this. While I am a great admirer of Vygotsy and think the article on Critical psychology should be retained, I agree with the others that a section on something so peripheral to psychology has no place in this article. -DoctorW 09:28, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Intro[edit]

In the introduction one can read the following:

"while also exploring the physiological and neurobiological processes that underlie certain cognitive functions and behaviors."

I'd like to point towards the use of the word "certain" here. For many people, my self included, physiological, neurobiological processes is believed to underlie all cognitive functions and behaviors, not just some. This is a view commonly hold within the field neuroscience, and although it is at the present still an unresolved philosophical problem I think the aforementioned quote should be rephrased to either include this viewpoint or use a more moderate one. The way it stands now, it would seem to imply that it's a fact that only certain cognitive functions and behaviors have physiological and neurobiological processes underlying them, which in turn begs the question of what underlie the remainder?

Maybe I don't understand your point fully, but I don't interpret the entire sentence (of which you have only quoted part) implies "that it's a fact that only certain cognitive functions and behaviors have physiological and neurobiological processes underlying them". First, "some" psychologists explore "some" physiological and neurobiological processes that underlie certain cognitive function and behavior. "Some" psychologists don't explore them at all. But not all psychologists explore all physiological and neurobiological processes that underlie all cognitive functions and behaviors. Secondly, although the wording of the sentence may need to be tweaked a bit, I don't think we need to go to the extreme of suggesting that we are anywhere close to understanding the physiological and neurobiological processes that underlie all cognitive functions and behaviors, or even many cognitive functions and behaviors. And finally, I'm sure that many psychologists believe that "physiological, neurobiological processes is believed to underlie all cognitive functions and behaviors", but not all psychologists believe that. I assume it is true that "this view is commonly held within the field neuroscience", but not all psychologists are neuroscientists, and this article is about psychology, not neuroscience. Some of this may be a semantic issue that can be fixed with some minor changes in wording, but I caution that we should avoid any extremes in suggesting what all or even most psychologists believe. Cresix (talk) 22:20, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
I agree with the above point that the word "certain" unnecessarily limits the study of function, so I have taken the liberty of deleting it. Also, I believe it is not at all clear that the underlying mechanisms of cognitive function are neural only, so I changed "neurobiological" to "biological", but left the link unchanged. A related question is where biopsychology comes in. Strasburger (talk) 11:27, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Copyediting[edit]

I am part of the Wikipedia Initiative Team. The following are the changes that I made to the Psychology page: In psychology (functionalism): changed ‘strains of thought’ to ‘popular theories of thought’ in order to add clarity to the sentence. In Psychology (developmental): changed ‘baby with a book’ caption on picture to ‘Developmental psychologists would engage a child with a book and then make observations based on how the child interacts with the object’. Made change in order to add more meaning to the picture that corresponded to the topic being discussed. In Psychology (Survey questionnaires): changed: Increasingly, web-based surveys are being used in research’, added : ‘for its convenience and also to get a wide range of participants.' Made change in order to highlight key concepts being discussed in the section.Villasa4 (talk) 00:55, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Dreams[edit]

In the second paragraph there is this silly sentence: "Psychologists of diverse stripes also consider the unconscious mind." I.E., a mental picture putting stripes on C.G. Jung? -Prison or zebra stripes? And, it's diverging from the point that it's important because that's where dreams occur. C.G. Jung didn't "study" the unconscious. He only recognized it's value because that's were we find the dreams which are a link to healing and mental health! Nicole Mahramus (talk) 14:03, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Nicole Mahramus! Thank you for your comment. I changed stripes into orientations. Lova Falk talk 09:19, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Fixed

Edit request on 23 July 2013[edit]

Psychology is not totally a scientific study, because if you think deeply about the theory of S.Freud about Ego, Super Ego, and Id, which have not been proven by scientific methods. As scientists believe seeing is believing, but S. Freud had never seen these three essences, and how he discovered them is not clear up until now. He also refutes human beings free will, if we do not own a free will, how can we make decisions? I think the psychologists have to reconsider S.Freud's theories about his psychoanalysis and find out about the true identification of human beings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sorosh51 (talkcontribs) 20:21, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I believe you'll find that all psychology is Freudian - that's an unfair stereotype to make of the subject. While it does encompass Freudianism and subjective interpretation, many fields exist that focus on mental and behavioural phenomena. These generate patterns that can be reproduced, and measured, with some degree of objectivity. Techhead7890 (talk) 11:48, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 January 2014[edit]

the Russian Empire physiologist Ivan Pavlov Maria Titova (talk) 13:19, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

...is referenced in this article a couple of times. Please be more specific as to what change you would like made to the article, in the form of "Change X to Y". --ElHef (Meep?) 03:47, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Possible copyright problem[edit]

This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. Diannaa (talk) 02:03, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Replication Crisis[edit]

I wonder, perhaps in the section on criticism, if there ought not be some discussion of the replication crisis issue in psychology? See some of the recent furor over the special edition of the journal Social Psychology on replication studies (most of the furor appears to be regarding just one of those studies).

Do psychologist separate the psychopaths and the people who feel emotion in their studies?[edit]

Do psychologist separate the psychopaths and the people who feel emotion in their studies? Psychopaths would greatly skew most psychological studies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.99.150.154 (talk) 18:33, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Psychopaths represent about 4% of men and 1% of women so it's unlikely they would have much impact on any given study. And, as they are part of the population, eliminating them would be MORE biasing rather than less, as this would result in a sample less representative of the population rather than more. StoneProphet11 (talk) 20:42, 12 July 2014 (UTC)