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.
This article is one of the core set of articles every encyclopedia should have.
This subject is featured in the Outline of psychology, which is incomplete and needs further development. That page, along with the other outlines on Wikipedia, is part of Wikipedia's Outline of Knowledge, which also serves as the table of contents or site map of Wikipedia.
Text has been copied to or from this article; see the list below. The source pages now serve to provide attribution for the content in the destination pages and must not be deleted so long as the copies exist. For attribution and to access older versions of the copied text, please see the history links below.
Craighead,W.E. & Nemeroff, C.B(2004) The concise corsini encyclopedia of psychology and behavioral science(3rd):NY.NY.John Wiley and Sons. Just to let you know I made some changes that I thought would be helpful in completing this assignment;
I wonder, perhaps in the section on criticism, if there ought not be some discussion of the replication crisis issue in psychology? See some of the recent furor over the special edition of the journal Social Psychology on replication studies (most of the furor appears to be regarding just one of those studies).
Natural Science , Social Science or Spiritual Science?
Blocked user POV-pushing attempt
Is Psychology Natural Science , Social Science or Spiritual Science? It is surely not "Natural Science". Most of Physicalists want to classify it as "Social Science". But, I think "Spiritual Science" is great neutral compromise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Realphi (talk • contribs) 17:57, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
The earliest known reference to the word psychology in English was by Steven Blankaart in 1694 in The Physical Dictionary which refers to "Anatomy, which treats the Body, and Psychology, which treats of the Soul." Realphi (talk) 17:59, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
1. "I think" - irrelevant, we want to know what reliable sources say. 2. Blankaart, 1694 = outdated source (not reliable) 3.In my mind, psychology was always the science of the "mind" (source: ), not the "soul" - the latter is left to pseudo-scientific pursuits such as theology 4. Even if there were a source which said otherwise, it would probably be a WP:FRINGE opinion and wouldn't go in this article (maybe in an article about the history of psychology?). 5. "Spiritual" isn't a compromise between "Social" and "Natural" 184.108.40.206 (talk) 12:29, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
6. "Psychologists" not "Physicalists" - and if psychologists classify psychology as a social science, then that is what we must write in Wikipedia, since it is the consensus of reliable sources. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 02:36, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
I just clarified the statement about psychology referred to as as hub discipline, see diffs. This also helps define the relationship between psychology and medicine. In medicine, psychological research is drawn from psychiatry and neurology, whereas the social sciences draw more directly from specialties within psychology. Notgain (talk) 23:27, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
No psychologist would deny the great influence Freud had on the genetic and biological direction of psychology. Unless they have physics envy. I recall when I was an undergraduate a cognitive psychologist using the term "action slip" instead of "Freudian slip" to avoid uttering the word. The main article History of psychology covers Freud's influence in more depth. Notgain (talk) 07:44, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
@Biogeographist: My fault, should be computational psychology, my brain was primed for "computer science"! I wonder if computational psychology is about to become so important that we should have a separate article about it. Jeblad (talk) 17:07, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
@Biogeographist: To quote The Cambridge Handbook of Artificial Intelligence; An approach that explains mental phenomena in information-processing terms, drawn from various types of AI (e.g., symbolic, connectionist, and evolutionary AI). Some computational psychologists also build computer models in order to test the power and coherence of their theories. Yeah, computational cognition is closer, even if cognition as such is ill-defined for the moment. Jeblad (talk) 12:18, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
@Jeblad: That definition that you quoted from The Cambridge Handbook of Artificial Intelligence sounds like a description of computational cognitive science. The preface to The Cambridge Handbook of Computational Psychology says: "Models in cognitive science are often roughly divided into computational, mathematical, or verbal-conceptual models. Although each of these types of models has its role to play, in this volume, we are mainly concerned with computational modeling." The use of the word "cognitive science" in that passage suggests to me that there is not much, if any, distinction between "computational psychology" and "computational cognitive science"? Biogeographist (talk) 15:57, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
@Biogeographist: The quote is from a glossary, and does not refer to the book as such. Jeblad (talk) 20:57, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
The definition of psychology in this article is incorrect. The text in this article defining psychology should be replaced by the following:
"Psychology is defined as the scientific study of the behavior of individuals, and of mental processes.". The authoritive reference of this is the PSYC1003 curriculum from Capella University at http://www.learner.org/series/discoveringpsychology/01/e01expand.html . 18.104.22.168 (talk) 21:41, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Not done That is not the authoritative work on psychology. The definition is very adequately referenced already. Fish+Karate 13:09, 7 August 2018 (UTC)