Talk:Behavior modification

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

Review request[edit]

Hi, would you mind reviewing my edits for behavior modification on my wiki page? Cgchapman (talk) 00:37, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Christina, I guess you mean User:Cgchapman/sandbox? The first paragraph is fine, but the part starting with "A classic program of behavior modification was developed at Emery Air Freight," is not quite. It is not very interesting to read about the problems at this company. What would be much more relevant is the question if this approach really works. To find out, what you need is a review, someone who has read several studies about the use of positive reinforcement in organizations. Also, you need to change the title of the section, because a section called Behavior modification in an article called Behavior modification is not such a good idea. With friendly regards, Lova Falk talk 07:35, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Okay, thank you for your input. I will make the changes. Cgchapman (talk) 16:10, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV[edit]

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
  1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
  2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
  3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:37, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Reductionism? Philosophy?[edit]

The last sentence is more than a non sequitur, it supports an ideological position and uses the dreaded "some" without citing anybody. Being reductionist is not negative from a scientific perspective. The implication that all one has to do is say "it is criticized for being reductionist" and not say why is unacceptable. Who says that? Why do they say that? If BM works, who cares if it is reductionist? I ask the writer what his or her reaction would be to someone wrote "it is criticized by some for not being reductionist"? This article is not about philosophy. And, by the way, behaviorism is not a philosophy is is an experimental approach. Is cognitive psychology a philosophy? Please omit this biased and non-sensical conclusion that detracts from the credibility of this article.Robotczar (talk) 22:50, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

On viewing the ABA page, i now think this page should be eliminated and "behavior modification" should take one to the Applied Behavior Analysis page.Robotczar (talk) 22:53, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

The last part of the criticism section says "several people say". Which people? Needs a citation.Robotczar (talk) 16:58, 2 March 2015 (UTC)