Talk:Applied psychology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Psychology (Rated Start-class, High-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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Misplaced text?[edit]

I removed the following text from the article. It seems to be misplaced (perhaps it should be on a discussion page), as it does not fit into this article. If you are the author, and intended to add this info to the article, please rewrite in an encyclopedic manner. -Nicktalk 04:32, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

DELETED TEXT:In working in the school system with children who have autism, Aquamarine Blue 5,edited by Dawn Prince-Hughes fit in perfectly with what I have been learning in the field. This book is a compilation of stories about college students with autism who talk about the difficulties they experience in living with their disorder. A lot of things discussed in the book match up perfectly with how the children in preschool act. They display much of the same characteristics and in reading Aquamarine Blue 5, it is easy to pair them with the children at school. Some of the characteristics discussed in the book are small things such as having a strict schedule, trouble eating a lot of food, recognizing people and becoming obsessed with different things. Some of the most prominent displays of autism seen at school are children who do not interact with other children and get angry when asked to share, little or no speech, trouble with transitions, tantrum throwing and not being able to follow simple directions. These characteristics are much more severe than what the college students talked about in the book because those people have a higher functioning form of the disorder. This is not to downplay what they go through daily because it can be just as difficult, however they are lucky in a sense that they are able to go to college and live life as close to "normal" as most people. One of the most interesting things about this disorder is having extreme trouble eating food. One boy in school will not eat most food given at snack time. He looks at his plate and immediately says he does not like what he's been given. Over time, his patterns show that the foods he does eat are all a brownish-tan color (including chicken nuggets, apple juice, crackers, graham crackers, etc). Before reading Aquamarine Blue 5, I would have only attributed how this little boy eats to just being a picky child. Now it is clear that he is not the only one who feels this way and that this type of eating is actually quite common among autistic people. Something I connect this behavior with is the idea that maybe he only eats food of this color is because formula given as an infant is this same color. I am not sure how this would have an affect on his eating pattern to this day, it just offers something to think about. One of the most difficult things to deal with when working with children who are autistic is the possibility of misdiagnosis. One of the little girls in preschool is thought by some people to be autistic and thought not to be by others. This is a very delicate subject because once a person is diagnosed, that diagnosis follows them for life. I can see why those different people feel the way they do and I could agree with both sides of the argument. I would have to be involved with a lot more testing and discreet trials to get a better grip of just what she is and is not capable of doing.

Psychology of Combat[edit]

Is there a field of "Psychology of Combat", or something like that? Maybe On Combat: The Psychology and Physiology of Deadly Conflict in War and in Peace could be usefull as a startup? - Nabla 20:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Edits are Coming[edit]

It is very evident that changes to this article are needed. I will be adding content to many sections. I will also be adding new history section. Additional help to critique the new content is welcomed. Mary2brown (talk) 16:06, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I have continued to work on major edits to the article since this previous talk posting. Shortly, I will be uploading my changes to the article itself. I will be moving half the introduction into its own history section, removing the random tangent from the I/O psychology section, and adding large portions of content to each of the sections. Here is the current state of the editing. (Note this is a work-in-progress sandbox) Are there any suggestions as I attempt to overhaul this article and move it above the stub rating? Mary2brown (talk) 16:25, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I have now uploaded my changes to the article. These were a few structural changes but the bulk was content additions. I attempted to not recreate the wikipedia article for each sub-section, but instead, give an overview of the sub-field without getting into the specifics of the full article for the topic. I am interested to have input on how these changes appear to other users/editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mary2brown (talkcontribs) 15:21, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Concern about changes that verge on vandalism[edit]

I invited user Mrm7171 to discuss changes. The invitations are on his talk page. In the event he does not know about his talk page, I left a link to his talk page in the comments I have made after undoing changes he made. He just excised the entire occupational health psychology subheading from this page without any discussion. I am concerned about his going in like a surgeon, and removing an entire section.Iss246 (talk) 01:10, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry iss246, as you know we have now been discussing things at length. I never knew about talk pages at the time. Anyway please get involved in the discussion below. Your thoughts are very welcome. thanks.Mrm7171 (talk) 03:30, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Group Discussion Requested on Criteria for inclusion[edit]

Hi fellow editors. There is currently great debate going on regarding what areas can legitimately be placed in this applied psychology section, given limited space. There has been no attempt so far to do this objectively and from the perspective of groiup consensus. However the psychology discipline and its related Wikipedia articles deserve such an approach in my opinion.Mrm7171 (talk) 03:42, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

This is the current list described on the outline of psychology article, for criteria to be applied to:

Applied Behavior Analysis Clinical psychology Community psychology Consumer psychology Counseling psychology Educational psychology Environmental psychology Forensic psychology Health psychology Human factors psychology Industrial and organizational psychology Legal psychology Media psychology Military psychology Occupational psychology Occupational health psychology Political psychology Psychoneuroimmunology Psychopharmacology School psychology Sport psychology Traffic psychology

My questions to the group before any additions/deletions are made are what criteria should be used for inclusion?

My initial thoughts are that if a major field of psychology already substantially covers areas of study then duplication should be avoided?

Also only actual psychology disciplines (ie not other separate professions/ disciplines like medicine, nursing, economics etc) should have the right for inclusion under applied psychology? After all, it is psychology, we are talking about.

Fields where graduate programs already exist around the world, not just in the USA?

What is currently accepted by major universities around the world, (ie. asia pacific, europe, Africas, Americas etc) and government regulators as to major areas of applied psychology?

These are my intial thoughts. Please add to the list of criteria and discuss this important matter further. Inclusion needs to be based on such criteria whereas I think in the past some areas have been wrongfully included and others left out. Thank you.Mrm7171 (talk) 03:30, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Applied psychology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:25, 16 October 2016 (UTC)