Talk:Group dynamics

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

This passage:

Most published and experienced work in group dynamics is very biased because of the YAVIS phenomena (Young Attractive Verbal Intelligent Successful). Working with "inscrutible" persons has been very difficlut because non-YAVIS methods are still being developed. The Big Brother popular television series, with several high-definition audiovisual recordings of a group is still evolving as a research tool that shows the failings of all prior research tools.

Was removed by an anonymous editor as nonsense. While unsourced, it is certainly not nonsense. Fred Bauder 19:14, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

The way it is written would be almost impossible to defend: "Most published and experienced work in group dynamics is very biased..." YAVIS is certainly a term used in psychotherapy. I haven't come across any studies of its applicability to group dynamics. I didn't remove the statement, but I didn't disagree with its removal. It would need a fair amount of work. Perhaps someone could begin by supplying some citations. Sunray 20:33, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

References[edit]

The references are almost archaic. And there is a lot more to group process than this article hints at. Someone who has the time might be able to get some current peer-reviewed articles discussing group process and dynamics. I know there are some excellent ones in the field of nursing that would apply to all group process...I don't have the time right now though. 198.166.58.153 20:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

While agreeing with the value of more modern references, I would like to add a link to an etext version of LeBon's work. The Univ of Virginia Library has an etext that has been compared to their actual copy in their holdings. I propose the following be appended to the reference entry for LeBon: The 1896 Macmillan Co Edition of this book available from the Electronic Text Center of the University of Virginia Library. AndrewMinko (talk) 20:59, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Merge[edit]

Proposal: "Group process" be merged into this article.

Rationale: Both articles are slim and need updated citations. The two together, with some updating, might make a reasonable article. Of the two terms, "Group dynamics" is the more common (2M+ hits on Google for "Group dynamics" vs. 1M for "Group process"). While group dynamics and group process are similar, both can be distinguished from the WP article on Group development, which is written from a more theoretical and "macro" viewpoint. There would, nevertheless need to be some rationalizing of content between the articles. Please indicate your support or opposition to this proposal below by 12:00 p.m. (UTC), October 4. Sunray (talk) 21:50, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Merge completed. Sunray (talk) 06:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Another merger proposal[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was to merge Andrew (talk) 09:59, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Proposal: group behaviour be merged into this article. Rationale: Hi all, I believe that there is no meaningful distinction between the topics of "group dynamics" and "group behaviour". I believe a cursory look at the respective contents tables for the two articles is a pretty clear indication of this. I suggest a merge (although I have no real preference for which title is retained). What do others think? Cheers Andrew (talk) 05:16, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Support. They are basically about the same subject. Seems to be an awful lot of work though, but if you feel like it... Personally I prefer the name group dynamics but I'm fine with group behavior as well. Lova Falk talk 19:59, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not doneDue to a prolonged stale.Forbidden User (talk) 08:06, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Forbidden User. I reinstated the merge proposal. I do plan on doing this. Are you happy to give me until the end of the month? Cheers Andrew (talk) 08:14, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Ok, I bet it's a hard work. Happy you're still here.Forbidden User (talk) 08:16, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Hi all. Just quick note on the way that I performed the merge of the content from Group behaviour. Other editors may notice that while predictably none of the redundant content came across, there was also a lot of other content that didn’t make the cut. My rationale for this is that much of the content from the Group Behavior article I felt was either off topic or of poor quality. In terms of the latter, much of it was uncited and in my view incorrect, or alternatively was pitched at a level too superficial for Wikipedia. I am not wedded to these choices though. If someone thinks that there is content that should have been brought across that was not, then by all means be bold and add it into the article or raise it in the talk page for discussion. Cheers Andrew (talk) 11:04, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Yet another merge proposal[edit]

Proposal  ; rescuer, bystander, perpetrator be merged into this article.

rationale same ilk of human manipulation...group theory , dynamics..Heroicimaginationproject.org — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.219.144.53 (talk) 23:52, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Oppose. That article doesn't appear to exist, so the merge would be quite a challenge. Cheers Andrew (talk) 05:04, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Oppose. Did you mean rescuer, bystander effect, and suspect? In which case these phenomena are sufficiently distinct that they require separate articles. --Andrewaskew (talk) 08:38, 11 January 2014 (UTC)