Talk:Somatotype and constitutional psychology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Psychology (Rated Start-class)
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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Skepticism (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Discrimination (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
 


The scientific validity of Sheldon's concept has been tested and confirimed by all known studies[edit]

The scientific community cannot refute a concept just by calling it quackery. A scientific concept can only be disproved by experimental evidence. All known experimental studies undertaken to test Sheldon's findings have produced supportive evidence for his position:

Sheldon maintained that the person's somatotype is genetically determined and causes people to develop and express personality traits consistent with their body builds. For example, he hypothesized that endomorphs (high in fatty tissue) would be sociable, complacent, and capable of easy communication of feelings. He thought mesomorphs (high in muscle tissue) would be adventurous, bold, competitive, aggressive, and energetic, whereas ectomorphs (low in fatty and muscle tissue) would be inhibited, introverted, hypersensitive to pain, and secretive. He tested these hypotheses by having observers rate individuals on these trait dimensions and found empirical support for his ideas (Sheldon, Hartl, & McDermott, 1949, pp. 26–27). Although this study has been strongly criticized on methodological grounds (Sheldon himself made both the physical and psychological ratings), more methodologically sound studies—in which investigator bias was minimized by having one investigator rate the somatotypes and having the study participants independently rate their own personality traits—have also produced supportive evidence for Sheldon's position (Child, 1950; Cortes & Gatti, 1965; Yates & Taylor, 1978).

Ryckman, Richard M. Theories of Personality Ninth edition, Cengage Learning, 2007, p. 260

89.110.28.44 (talk) 06:05, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Editor75439 (talk · contribs) - I note that both the above IP address and 91.122.93.70 are going through OJSC ROSTELECOM's DSL of AVANGARDDSL.RU - you have been banned not only from editing the article, but from editing its talk page. IP-address sock puppetry is also banned. I suggest removing the above yourself (and the similar material from the Talk page for Sheldon) before the ban is extended further. Allens (talk) 10:32, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Further evidence for IP-address sock puppetry: 89.110.10.99, 89.110.8.138, and 89.110.17.92 are likewise from OJSC ROSTELECOM's DSL of AVANGARDDSL.RU - these IP addresses were used to make about the same modifications as Editor75439 kept doing via edit warring; they were done prior to Editor75439's starting editing, and appear likely to be from Editor75439.
Editor75439: If you had actually simply presented the above (which is itself citing suspiciously non-modern studies, and has been contradicted by other evidence; I am rather too tired to bother gathering the evidence now, especially given that it's been gathered before) on the talk page, and argued that this viewpoint on Sheldon's theory should be included, without personal attacks, sock puppetry, etc, you'd have been listened to a lot more (I'd have been willing to listen - I was willing to make modifications to Science wars on behalf of an IP address arguing from a viewpoint that I vehemently disagree with as a scientist). As it is, your viewpoint is going to be excluded, and you have only yourself to blame. Please try to learn from this experience. Allens (talk) 10:47, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
" Sheldon's attempts to uncover correlations between the three body types and the three personality types was a noble effort which reflected a touch of validity, but as a unified theory of personality it was a failure."
"Constitutional Theory". The Penguin Dictionary of Psychology. Penguin. 2009. ISBN 9780141030241. 
"William Sheldon (Sheldon & Stevens, 1942) devised his somatotype theory... However, this theory has been discredited due to a lack of findings that support a link between temperament and body type (Catell & Metzner, 1993)."
"Body Type". Encyclopedia of Special Education: A Reference for the Education of Children, Adolescents, and Adults with Disabilities and Other Exceptional Individuals. Wiley. 2007. ISBN 9780471678021. 
- - MrBill3 (talk) 03:45, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Removal of sourced content, unparaphrased additions[edit]

Sourced content should not be removed. If an editor wishes to add content it should be paraphrased and the references given properly. Once reverted before re adding content there should be discussion here. - - MrBill3 (talk) 15:51, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

A New York Times article is not a legitimate source when it comes to ideologically sensitive science topics. To them, ideology is above science. 89.110.8.134 (talk) 17:25, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
If you consider a source unacceptable for particular content, take it to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. If you want to make substantial changes to the article and have been reverted already, present a case for doing so here and build consensus. - - MrBill3 (talk) 02:55, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

The sources presented to support the notion that this is still the subject of consideration currently were inaccurately represented. The first, Ryckman 2007 goes on to state, "Despite these findings, however, there is no direct proof that the correlations were caused by biological factors." and then discusses other theories that have supplanted Sheldon's. It does not provide any evidence that Sheldon's theories are the basis for any current research or are used in any way now. The second, Roeckelein 1998 is a dictionary of theories and lists Sheldon's with some explanation but again provides no evidence it is employed in any fashion currently. Roeckelein goes on to give the major criticisms of Sheldon's theory, that it's not a theory at all but a single assumption with a set of descriptive concepts, that Sheldon's work was methodologically flawed and that the factors he assessed are not consistent but change. Lengthy quotes are note needed in references, that's what a reference list is for, to verify one can read the source. - - MrBill3 (talk) 03:52, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

In addition to the recent reference added and making a more full reading of the other sources see also Weckowicz & Liebel-Weckowicz, 1990 pp. 220-1 ISBN 9780080867205. It's pretty clear that this theory was dead in the water over 25 years ago. - - MrBill3 (talk) 05:41, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

The authors in your references do not substantiate their claims about Sheldon's theory with any citations. Such references are not valid. If you believe that Sheldon was wrong, provide references to scientific works that have proven him wrong. 92.100.160.46 (talk) 18:58, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
They are reliable sources per policy. If you have objections take it to RSN. - - MrBill3 (talk) 20:30, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Body and brain[edit]

The primary motor cortex is mainly involved in the proprioceptive and the dynamic aspects of the voluntary movements.

Ref13: have you read the paper?[edit]

I have moved Ref 13 ("Physique correlates with reproductive success in an archival sample of delinquent youth") from "Sheldon's methodology and theories have been extensively criticized and largely discredited.[1][13]" to "Sheldon's methodology[13] and theories have been extensively criticized and largely discredited.[1]"

because in the study you can read "In this study legitimate questions can be raised about Sheldon’s sampling methods and the rigor of his measurements, especially for the structural integration variables." yet "However, this research suggests that somatotype remains a useful approach to quantifying physique. While Sheldon’s dream of a comprehensive constitutional psychology based on his dimensions may never be realized, understanding how body morphology is related to sexual selection, mating effort, and other behaviors remains an important area for research." which is different from criticizing and discrediting is theories… — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zwegenschen (talkcontribs) 18:06, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Discredited???[edit]

192000 search results on internet — Preceding unsigned comment added by Granito diaz (talkcontribs) 17:15, 22 April 2015 (UTC)