From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Former featured article candidatePsychology is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
March 16, 2007Featured article candidateNot promoted


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;

Replication Crisis[edit]

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).

Question about definition[edit]

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 . (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)

good article candidate[edit]

This page should be nominated. WP:GAN/I Vrie0006 (talk) 02:44, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Contemporary issues in methodology and practice dispute[edit]

@Snowded: I will begin this discussion since you haven't but you should be the one articulating why you think the content I added was to make a political point. It wasn't. It was an elaboration on the preexisting content, which states "Fanelli argues that this is because researchers in 'softer' sciences have fewer constraints to their conscious and unconscious biases." More importantly, if you'd read the articles that were cited, you would find that the content I added was in fact a neutral summary of the research that was cited, and since what that research has shown, as I summarized, that "the disparity has been undermining the quality of research in psychology", it is more than relevant to the section about contemporary issues in methodology and practice, and while I recognize that the surveys were done of academic societies in the United States, that is why I added the additional text as a disclaimer.

In addition, you also removed other content that was unrelated to the political ideology and affiliation statistics, and that was a summary of the replication crisis in other subfields of psychology and reforms the field has taken to address the problem, which I can neither see how there is any plausible reason to remove from the section (as it is also about contemporary issues in methodology and practice of the field), nor can I see how that content was intended as a political point either. -- Jajhill (talk) 15:25, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

It reads as a statement in wikipedia's voice that the field shows political bias and its only US based anyway. I really can't see how its significant or how the conclusion could be legitimately held to undermine quality of research. The majority of evolutionary biologists are not young earth creationists - that doesn't indicate bias or undermine their research -----Snowded TALK 15:38, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
@Snowded: As I noted before, it is not my conclusion that the imbalance in the political ideology and affiliation of academic psychologists is undermining the quality of research in the field. That was the conclusion of the studies that were cited, one of which was actually a literature review. Also, considering that the academic psychology organizations that were surveyed are among the largest professional psychology organizations in the world, even though they are based in the United States, it is disingenuous and absurd to suggest that to cite those surveys is somehow giving them undue weight, especially when it is noted in the text that the organizations are based in the United States. Also, your comparison of academic psychology to evolutionary biology is not even remotely suitable. Evolutionary biology has not had the same issues with regard to the replicability of its findings that academic psychology has had, and it has had those issues due to the biases of the people working in the field as the preexisting content noted, which I reiterate, the content that I added was an elaboration of and were the conclusions of the studies and the literature review that was cited.
Additionally, you have ignored the fact that you removed content that was unrelated to the political ideology and affiliation statistics. Since you have not provided any remote justification for having removed it, I will be restoring it to the article. -- Jajhill (talk) 16:17, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
There are several conclusions that could be drawn from that data - an alternative was implied by my reference to evolutionary biology. There is no reason to privilege one interpretation which is clearly making a political point. Ditto to ideology and affiliation - you need to demonstrate that is relevant. -----Snowded TALK 16:40, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
@Snowded: I already did demonstrate that it was relevant since it was a continuation of the preexisting content. You are just simply not willing to acknowledge it. While there may be multiple conclusions that could be drawn from the data, they are not for Wikipedia editors to make. Our role is to summarize the sources of our information, and the conclusions that I put forward were not my own. They were the conclusions of the authors of the source, which as I reiterate, were performing a literature review published in an academic journal with one of the highest impact factors in the field, and as such, it is disingenuous and absurd to suggest that it was politically motivated or is privileging a particular interpretation of the data to make a political point. More importantly, the literature review was conducted to show how the decline in the ideological diversity of their field has damaged the quality of the research in the field, which as I also reiterate, is highly relevant to the contemporary issues and methodological practices of the field, which you are also just simply not willing to acknowledge. I'm restoring the rest of the content, and if you attempt to revert it again, I will notify the vandalism message boards that you are vandalizing the article. -- Jajhill (talk) 17:13, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
You were bold, you were reverted, now you discuss. I suggest you self revert - if not I will restore the stable state pending agreement. Accusing experienced editors of vandalism is generally frowned on - especially when they are simply removing controversal new material. If there is no agreement bring in other editors, call a RfC, lots of mechanisms other than edit warring - for which I have now warned you -----Snowded TALK 17:21, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
@Snowded: Fine. I will revert it. Since I don't know any other editors who might have an opinion about this or how to call an RfC, you should do that. -- Jajhill (talk) 17:26, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
@Snowded: You can remove the disputed section notice since I've removed the content that you disputed. -- Jajhill (talk) 17:46, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
Thanks and I have - I will forumlate something if other editors who have this on their watch list do not respond. -----Snowded TALK 18:18, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
@Snowded: Thank you, and I apologize for my tone and inappropriate reverts before. Rereading what I wrote, I recognize that some of my comments were rude. I'm just accustomed to other editors (including some very experienced ones) being incredibly rude to me and arbitrarily reverting edits that I make good faith because they assume that I'm not doing so, and it's now become an reflexive reaction that I have when someone reverts content that I add. I also often feel that other experienced editors and administrators often have a bias against me in dispute resolution. -- Jajhill (talk) 18:26, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
Hey, you did the right thing in self reverting. I'm impressed :-) -----Snowded TALK 18:37, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

For other editors, here is the disputed content:

Multiple studies since Fanelli's research have found academic psychology in the United States (and social psychology in particular) to be severely imbalanced in terms of political ideology and political party affiliation. Recent member surveys of American academic psychology societies have shown that 84 to 89 percent of academic psychologists self-identify as liberals, while only 6 to 9 percent self-identity as centrists or moderates, and only 3 to 8 percent self-identify as conservatives, and the ratio of liberals-to-conservatives or Democrats-to-Republicans has increased from less than 4:1 prior to 1990 to 36:1 by 2016. (Duarte et. al; Haidt and Jussim) In addition, studies of the field have shown that the increased ideological imbalance in psychology has been caused by self-selection, hostile climate, and discrimination towards non-liberals, and that the disparity has been undermining the quality of research in psychology. (Inbar and Lammers; Honeycutt and Freberg; Duarte et. al)

-- Jajhill (talk) 19:59, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Searchtool-80%.png Response to Third Opinion Request:
Disclaimers: I am responding to a third opinion request made at WP:3O. I have made no previous edits on Psychology and cannot recall any prior interaction with the editors involved in this discussion which might bias my response. The third opinion process (FAQ) is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes. Third opinions are not tiebreakers and should not be "counted" in determining whether or not consensus has been reached. My personal standards for issuing third opinions can be viewed here. One particularly wise Third Opinion Wikipedian, RegentsPark, once succinctly put the purpose of Third Opinions like this, "It's sort of like if you're having an argument on the street in front of City Hall and turn to a passer-by to ask 'hey, is it true that the Brooklyn Bridge is for sale?'.

Opinion: I don't believe the material should be included. Taking it at face value, my reaction to it is "so what" in relation to the general scope and purpose of this article (which is, let me add, exactly how I believe an ordinary user of the encyclopedia would take it). Even if it were rewritten to make it clear that it's a further expansion of, or comment upon, Fanelli's point, I think that it gives undue weight to the material in the proposed addition. (I'm less certain about the following opinion, but I'm also a little uncomfortable that in its current form, even properly understood as a riff on Fanelli, it might be prohibited synthesis by implication, "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." (emphasis added), and that if rewritten to make that riff clear that it might be outright prohibited synthesis. But that's kind of moot since I don't think it should be here in the first place.)

What's next: Once you've considered this opinion click here to see what happens next.—TransporterMan (TALK) 19:14, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 January 2019[edit]

"Soivet" = "Soviet" 2605:E000:9149:8300:3D53:631B:A55F:D17F (talk) 21:50, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

 Done DannyS712 (talk) 23:30, 11 January 2019 (UTC)