Talk:Parataxic distortion

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Placement rod by hole"? How about rephrasing this so it makes sense? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.61.36.185 (talk) 14:23, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In Layman's terms, parataxic distortion = biased perception of others/acting according to a biased perception of others ("bias" based on past experience(s) involving a person or people with similarities to present subjected individual); parataxic distortion could be (in certain instances) a precursor to stereotyping and/or discrimination, perhaps? See referenced definition: parataxic distortion. (n.d.). Dictionary.com Unabridged. Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2010. Retrieved November 21, 2010, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/parataxic distortion BrookeBarber (talk) 09:40, 21 November 2010 (UTC)BrookeBarber[reply]

I rewrote a good deal of this article, saved all I could from the past.[edit]

Hi, this is my first time editing a wiki, but I was embarrassed by the grammar and writing of this article enough to get involved. I made quite a few changes and deleted what I thought were poor examples, explanations and superfluous descriptions of parataxic distortion that made the article seem juvenile in it's understanding. Sorry I couldn't enter any in-line citations, I barely have time to update the article as I did.

If anyone objects to my changes, I tried. If the article is reverted, please at least spend the time to fix the grammar issues and delete the paragraph where parataxic distortion is portrayed as a mental disease. The whole 'if it goes without treatment' paragraph warning it could send the user into an alternate reality no one else can understand...It just displays a complete misunderstanding of what a defense mechanism and parataxic distortion really is. I like to point my friends this way when they ask something interesting about psychology. I apologize if my edits are out of line with any rules wikipedia may have regarding the process.

I also added a few 'see also's'. This topic isn't easy to understand without the context of surrounding topics in cognitive psychology. I think the article is much improved. If I stepped on anyones toes, again, I apologize. Thank you. 206.48.240.166 (talk) 11:28, 20 September 2012

Great job! And it would be a yet greater job if you could add sources to your statements. Lova Falk talk 12:34, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I've been trying to find resources online to cite here, but haven't had the time to dig deep enough yet. I made sure to leave the resources section untouched as well as any previously cited statements. I know that a good deal of the statements I've made can be weeded out and improved upon, so I'll come back with better information as I can find it. 206.48.240.166 (talk) 23:48, 24 September 2012