Talk:Self-help

Dr Neville Yeomans?

I'm curious about the addition of this name in the history section. Might it be WP:UNDUE? There isn't an article on this person in Wikipedia which might suggest they are not significant enough in "history" to be along side giants of literature like Ralph Waldo Emerson. Is the intent to represent another country (Australia) because of a perceived Systemic bias towards America to better represent all countries? the thoughtfulness of representing more countries is appreciated.

I suggest removing Yeomans. The article could grow to overwhelm a reader with every person in the self-help arena (Dyer, Chopra, and every country with a guru.) Going past originators of the topic risks leaving some people out and that dialog. Removing can keep it more concise, encyclopedia, unless we want to add a table with names. Less is more and weight can be honored. Comments? Eturk001 (talk) 00:14, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

adding "online/offline" may add confusion

An anonymous user added "online & offline" to second paragraph of lead.

I don't know if adding this adds much to the topic. Yes, maybe 100 years from now people might not know that self-help was offered "online", but that's a stretch. Also, "offline" is quite ambiguous linguistically. It means various things in culture, like let's talk "offline" which means "not during this session". Offline does not describe books or audio. And doing group work is possibly "other-help" still. "Online" is also a layman's terms but is vague. "Internet" is more accurate.

Does not seem to be the language of a scholarly article or encyclopedia. If no clear arguments for that specific add, let's remove it. Less is more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eturk001 (talk • contribs) 20:08, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Internet and in person is a little better, BUT, notice the 1841 reference I added from Emerson. He wasn't talking about seminars or online courses. He suggested that a man work on himself, rather than have someone else do it. That would be "introspection", self-awareness. It could be journaling or many other things. Later, it might have been books much later tapes.

I think too many qualifiers need to be added to describe every way. If some are left out, it's incomplete. Best to remove completely? Less is more.

We should probably add the Oracle at Delphi for "know thyself" as an early reference to self-help or self-awareness. Eturk001 (talk) 00:01, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Criticism Section Longer than the Rest of the Article

That seems kind of unbalanced. I can understand pointing out common criticisms of self help but that should not be the primary focus of the article.

Also the criticism section lumps all of self-help together. Thats kind of ridiculous if you consider that each self-help book or movement has different techniques, movements and proponents. Also self-help books are focused on many different problems. So a section that talks about 'self-help' like it is 'one thing' is kind of silly.

In other words, there is no single 'self-help movement' and there never was.

Also self-help is just people helping themselves-- most people do that every day. So criticism of what everybody does all the time seems a bit irrelevant. Self help is kind of like breathing. Everybody does it all the time.

On a planet with 6 billion people, someone out there somewhere is probably criticizing breathing right now. But would you want to quote them and write about what they say at great length in an encyclopedia-style article about breathing?

Sean7phil (talk) 18:01, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I just added this sentence to the opening paragraph. "There are many different self-help movements and each one has its own unique focus, techniques, associated beliefs, proponents and in some cases leaders."

This article needs a lot more work though, or should be deleted.

Sean7phil (talk) 18:05, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

My remarks directed to Sean7Phil's remarks above. DCDuring's below seem to be separate comments.

I agree with Sean7P's remarks individually and in total. The field is broad, covering a wide range of 'teachers' trying to reach a wide range of clients with a wide range of techniques addressing a wide range needs. The general problem of broad and unsupported claims here is apparent in the shortcoming of the "The Criticisms" and of the Criticisms themselves. "Scholars have targeted self-help claims as misleading and incorrect.". Really? All scholars? All self-help claims? This is a preposterous claim.

As with academic research, there are frauds and scam artists in this field. But is it reasonable to claim that all writers and all methods are fraudulent, and all readers of this material are dumb groupies and none of them have ever gained anything from self-help? That only science, or university approved consultants and academics can ever provide us with effective solutions? From what I've observed most people touting academic credentials are spouting the same (self-help) materials as everyone else.

As Sean7Phil says: let's have a better balance here and some perspective particularly in the negatives section. If Steve Salerno made his claims for self-help, the academics would immediately point out the shortcomings in his outlandish assessments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by --50.68.134.51 (talk) 23:09, 20 April 2016 (UTC)50.68.134.51 (talk) 23:07, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Secular self-help only?

Bookstores segregate religious-themed books with a self-help component from more secular self-help. WP seems to prefer keeping diverse points of view on the same subject in the same article. DCDuring 20:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Bookstores also tend to group certain religious materials under the 'occult' label. I've also seen the graphic novel Maus in the humor section in a number of shops. Placement in shops in and of itself does not make a very good argument one way or another in the definition of the scope of any given genre.24.47.154.230 (talk) 16:31, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Should it only include solutions to "problems"?

Almost all self-help books address problems, most of them explicitly (bad habits, procrastination, addiction, death, relationships, loneliness, depression), some implicitly (esp. poor self-image and depression). Does that belong in the definition? DCDuring 20:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Should it only include "psychological" problems?

In the self-help section the problems seem psychological. In the business, diet, health, home sections there may be a psychological component, but the focus in on the result and on a variety of means to achieve the desired result. DCDuring 20:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Should it only include "psychological" means for addressing problems?

Is the focus on "psychologicial" solutions to problems of any kind? Changing habits, changing attitudes, changing beliefs, changing decisions. (Feelings are always a result ???) DCDuring 20:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Is the focus on changing oneself, but not just one's knowledge?

Is the idea improving oneself by oneself? DCDuring 20:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Self-help vs. Personal Development

I believe that "Personal Development" should not be treated as a synonym for "Self-help". I propose to create a page for "Personal Development" in its own right. This is because there is a clear distinction: self-help material aids in the engagement of acute and objectively observable problems, such as alcoholism, that by a common standard demand fixing. Personal development focuses on "being the best you can be", not necessarily setting out at a dysfunctional starting point. The distinction may not always be crystal clear; take PUA theory as an example -- PUA theory may improve your existing game (personal development) as well as get you started in flirting, even though you're absolutely scared of talking to girls (self-help). Accepting this ambiguity, I maiuntain that Self-help and Personal Development are different yet related concepts. Please give me feedback on this distinction, and if it is positive, I will spawn a candidate for a "Personal Development" article. Gherret (talk) 06:41, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

This runs contrary to how the world "self help" is actually used. In my experience anyway. In common usage, "Self Help" seems to include the "Personal Development" category. I have rarely heard or read "Personal Development" used in place of "Self Help" in these areas. When it is used, it seems to be used euphemistically by in order to avoid the stigma of "Self Help."24.47.154.230 (talk) 16:36, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Grameen Bank

Muhammad Yunus and his Grameen Bank were awarded Nobel's Peace Prize in 2006 for their work with "micro-credit", help to self-advancement. "Self-help." (An aside: Yunus spoke just recently at a peace prize forum in Minnesota and, according to a report I've read, he was an enthusiastic and inspiring speaker.)

I think the article is way unbalanced toward emotional help, and that more on concrete help to self-help, such as many NGOs give, might improve it. My $0.02 --Hordaland (talk) 23:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup tag

I've added a cleanup tag to this article due to multiple issues that need to be addressed, e.g.

• Most of the introduction talks about support groups and even moves into lobby groups
• A large number of citations for claims have been requested, and in this case some claims usually do not survive checking (e.g. did self-help books arise from "the spread of new psychological sciences", -- and what are these "sciences"?
• The last paragraph in the Criticisms section actually praises self-help
• Problems with over-lapping use of incompatible definitions of self-help (e.g. education versus individual research versus joining a spiritual movement versus following the programme of a motivation speaker versus support groups, etc.), and these need to be clearly delineated in different sections, or even different articles.

Robertbyrne (talk) 13:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I thought of working on it once, but gave up and worked on Support group instead :-)

The starting point here should probably be some clear definitions, if possible. --Hordaland (talk) 14:14, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

External Link

I have provided the only external link that seemed neutral and useful for me. It is a free program centered on self help that provides people with useful tools. I think it would be great if we provide info that can really help people who is looking through this topic in order to find good resources. Looneyloo (talk) 21:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Take a look. -- net (talk) 08:24, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

The publishing industry

This article has been a poor one for a long time, and it doesn't seem to be going anywhere. Rather embarrassing for the project IMO. I wonder if it shouldn't be turned into an article about the phenomenon of self-help book publishing. At least in the US, that's been going on for quite a while and it should be interesting enough to have an article in its own right. The article at present contains a lot of criticism of that publishing "fad" which would be much easier to incorporate if that were the subject of the article.

The bits which wouldn't fit there can be moved to Self-help (law), Self-help groups for mental health, Support group and any number of other articles with the words "Community" and "Self-help" in the titles (see the "See also" sections of the above-mentioned articles. There's even Self-help book which maybe then could be merged with this one. Thoughts? - Hordaland (talk) 16:57, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

First I wrote this comment. Then I read the talk page.  :-(

Much of what I said has been said before, especially by DSDuring. But consensus wasn't reached and/or no one wanted to do the work..... - Hordaland (talk) 17:07, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

self help books

I went looking for self help books and found; Lists by type of writing or genre as shown below but there is no link for or to self help books there. I've not done any linking yet, would love to try but don't want to get it wrong the first time, only my second week here could use an assist on this one. Folkloristics Bestselling fiction authors Biographers Buddhist authors Business writers Catholic authors Children's literature authors Christian fiction authors Crime writers Detective fiction authors Dramatists Early-modern women playwrights (UK) Early-modern women poets (UK) Essayists Tinkermen (talk) 16:57, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

"Criticism" section

I've changed the title and drastically reduced the text.

FYI, here is what I did. - Hordaland (talk) 16:04, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

New comment

• Are there self-help books and authors from countries aside from America?

[Moved comment by 124.105.37.169 from top of page to here.] - Hordaland (talk) 08:57, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

general quality of this article

This is one of the worst articles I've ever seen on Wikipedia. I think the reasons are fairly obvious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.58.132.180 (talk) 17:24, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Makeover culture

Have expanded, refimproved, contextualised (much of the) spam, and sorted some of the references. Hope the camel is now looking a bit more like a horse, and am removing a couple of its multiple tags. Cannot answer fully for neutrality, however, and some of the Talk issues still need addressing, ie more on self-help credit unions, less on self help books....Jacobisq (talk) 13:06, 5 December 2010 (UTC)