Talk:Psychology/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

The Psychology Wiki

The Psychology Wiki is a Wikia project, meaning that it is run by Wikia Inc, associated to Wikimedia foundation who run Wikipedia. You can think of the project as a daughter of the wikipedia site.

We are a large wiki in terms of content but small in terms of contributors. We have various plans to promote ourselves through wikipedia, and through psychology on and off the internet, but some more promotion amongst people already familiar with Wiki editing would be very advantageous.

The Psychology Wiki differs from Wikipedia psychology articles in that:

  • 1) It is intended to contain all of the discipline of psychology, like a giant meta-textbook, rather than an Encyclopedia.
  • 2) It will therefore go into much greater technical detail than one would have in an encyclopedia. It will have full academic referencing.
  • 3) It will have user experiences relating to psychology issues on seperate user pages, protected by admins, allowing POV to be expressed on these pages only. The rest of the wiki is NPOV, but expression of personal experience is nessesary and desireable on our wiki.
  • 4) It will have course content pages from academic and clinical courses with links to internal wiki articles.
  • 5) It will be a place for researchers to discuss latest papers etc...

PS All wiki editors should be aware of the psychological phenomena of Social Loafing. It effects new Wikis with few contributors especially.

Here are some useful pages on our site

We just need more contributors to make it work! Mostly Zen 23:21, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

This is a wonderful idea that may run into practicality problems: the contributors most qualified to present a through, professional article may not receive compensation necessary to further our careers. Compensation does not mean monetary reward. I mean that one can not present these ideas at an APA Conference and hope that it will receive the same standing as a peer-reviewed journal article, nor can we revise the articles and accept a nod of approval from those scrutinizing our vita. Personally this site is fascinating to observe its devoted users who seem to have little professional background in the areas to which they contribute. I'm afraid that the current roster of contributors will not lend necessary gravitas to a meta-textbook intended to widen and deepen the scope of current offerings.
Current content in the psychology portal is, for the most part, acceptable for breezy reading for personal interest. However, I don't know any practicing psychologists who view Wikipedia as a reliable starting point for any information. If this project wishes to ratchet up the degree of professionalism, we will need to make direct appeals to college professors who have, perhaps, written general psychology textbooks. Without referent power this project will continue to be the exclusive domain of bored college students. Asking researchers to discuss current findings on a site administered by them is strenuously ambitious.
My suggestion: Search for authors of psych textbooks, contact them directly, and get someone to publicly stamp his or her name on this project. Better yet, have her or him create an outline, write an entire section as an example and lead this project much as an APA Editor might review submissions. Also, create a Wiki Title that’s vita-friendly e.g., Psychology Editor. In this way a psychology professor will move quickly from lending precious time to a project that otherwise detracts from her career to being at the vanguard of a new and exciting project. She, in turn, will enable interest from others in our field creating a positive snowball effect. BrainDoc 16:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Fringe "subfields" of psychology

In an encyclopedic entry as vast as the topic of psychology, a limited "See also" section cannot contain everything. You'll notice that none of the 53 divisions of the APA are even part of this list. In no way does Critical psychology belong there. -DoctorW 07:20, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. I think that list is much too long. Computer science - that's rather far fetched IMO. We can't list every field that intersects with psychology, we'd end up adding every article in Wikipedia. I'll remove that one for now... /Skagedal 23:20, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
I'd leave that one. AI research is a big topic in current research psychology. I'd add statistics to it as well... 16:11, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Then link to Artificial intelligence. Computer science is a whole lot more than AI. Statistics, OTOH, I agree is quite relevant. /skagedal... 01:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


would you like to publish this article? -- Zondor 22:23, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Subfields of psychology

I find it odd that behavior analysis is completely lacking.--Heida Maria 16:58, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Project psycho


First of all : sorry to writte here while i do not edit much english articles.
The wish to review the categories is a very good idea, because the categories are awful. I do not know a lot of psychologycal schools , but in the categorie(s) i know a great work has to be made. Why not creating a project ? It would have been more comfortable to work on the categories before, but this task has to be talked, discussed, and most of all it has to be collective.

I would contribute but i do not have enough english contributions to create it. Someone willing to SAVE this category ?

Merry Christamas, pyl 18:13, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Improvement Drive

Meditation is currently a nominee on WP:IDRIVE. If you would like to see this article improved vote for it on WP:IDRIVE.--Fenice 15:33, 27 December 2005 (UTC)


The image "a couple in love" (Image:Erin & David.jpg) seemed very much like a vanity image that didn't illustrate the text any better than the current image of an anonymous crowd (Image:Shibuya tokyo.jpg). If you oppose this change please state your reasons here as I am open to discussion on this matter. Semiconscioustalk 08:29, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I put the couple in love picture there, and wasn't sure wheither it belonged. The current image is better. --Heida Maria 23:15, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

History section

Before we had a nice little overview of the history of psychology, with a link to the main article. Now we have this very long text, and it just makes the article seem cluttered. Why not just keep the short summary text and expand the history of psychology article instead? --Heida Maria 23:19, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Psychoanalysis is not psychology

I don't think it is appropriate that the first thing people see when they read this article is a picture of Freud; he is NOT representative of psychology as it is today. The same goes for this section, which I want removed (at least as an introduction section):

Freud divided the mind into the id (an individual's basic needs and instincts), the superego (personal and cultural values and norms), and the ego (the central, organising self, whose job it is to satisfy the id but not upset the superego). [1]

C. G. Jung founded the school of analytical psychology and introduced the notion of the collective unconscious, a term taken from philosophy and used by Jung to describe symbols or archetypes that he believed might be common to all cultures. There are also the Conscious, Subconscious, and Superconsciousness, a related but not identical set of categories. The behaviour and mental processes of animals (human and non-human) can be described through animal cognition, ethology, and comparative psychology as well as animal psychology. Social psychology intertwines sociology with psychology in their shared study of the nature and causes of human social behavior, with an emphasis on how people think towards each other and how they relate to each other. Social Psychology aims to understand how we make sense of social situations.

Plus this article is getting way too long (see also my comment above about the history of psychology.

--Heida Maria 18:30, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

  • JA: I don't think that having Freud's picture on the front page amounts to an assertion that Freud's legacy is all there is to contemporary psychology, any more than putting a bust of Archimedes on a mathematics page or a portrait of Machiavelli on a political science page would say the analogous things about those subjects. I doubt if there's any comprehensive narrative for the subject at present, but when it comes to transitional figures in turbulent times who touched on far more than the usual range of diverse aspects of psychology, it would be difficult to think of any one forerunner more "representative" than Freud. So he comes honestly by his iconic status in the public eye for what that's worth. Jon Awbrey 06:06, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  • JA: I don't think 38 K is really all that long an article compared to many that I've seen with comparable work to do. But I agree that the opening is a bit too simplistic from any point of view. So maybe we could work on that in a less demolitional way. Jon Awbrey 06:06, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

On the role of articles with very generic titles

  • JA: First of all, this is not a problem that is specific to the article Psychology, but one that affects almost any article with a very generic title. We should not expect too much from such an article. It needs to be more than a disambiguation page, but it can hardly be expected to do more than serve as a hub for directing the reader to the many-splintered facets or a massively complex subject, pursued by thinkers from a panoply of diverse points of view in a historical panorama of sundry climes and times. There will be inevitable tensions pulling on any such hub. Perhaps we can help the centre to hold not too slouchily, but it will take some care and a lot of respect for the vastening variety of aspects that go to make up the full subject matter, er, mind. Jon Awbrey 18:34, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Iconography & Iconoclasm

JA: I looked at the pictures that are used at comparably generic articles, and they are all rather incidental in character:

  1. Astronomy has a 1969 Apollo 11 snapshot of the Lunar crater Daedalus.
  2. Biology has a collage of assorted macro-&-micro fauna and flora.
  3. Chemistry has a photograph captioned "Multicolored chemicals are frequent hallmarks of chemistry".
  4. Cognitive science has the medulla obbligato of a brain a la mode. So that one's taken already.
  5. Mathematics's got Nothing.
  6. Philosophy has very nice, if somewhat dimly enlightened detail of a Rembrandt painting, "The Philosopher".
  7. Physics has a photograph of a "Superconductor demonstrating the Meissner effect".
  8. Political science, what else, has a portrait of Machiavelli. Now there's a good role model for ya!
  9. Sociology has a low-res picture of some people on the steps of the Field Museum in Chicago.


I completely agree with everyone that having the picture of Freud in the introduction is ridiculous and it should definitely be removed, also there is no good reason why the intro should start out by stating that Freud divided the mind into the Id and whatever, it gives the reader an incorrect impression of modern psychology, to which Freud’s unscientific ideas bear no relation.

Also the photo of Freud is in copyright violation, so it should be removed either way. 06:49, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. The Freud pic does little more than feed the stereotype of psychology. -Nicktalk 07:00, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • JA: The use of pejorative terms like "unscientific" in reference to Freud's work as a whole is indicative of one POV with respect to Freud, one POV with respect to psychology, and one POV with respect to what constitutes science. I recognize these three POV's. I think that they deserve a voice. I recognize also that they are not the only POV's on their respective subject matters. I think that other POV's also deserve a voice. I'm not sure that a generic hub article on Psychology is the place to negotiate the claims of these various voices, but neither is it the place to slant a very diverse field in one direction or the other. NPOV does mean a denial of the fact that there are different POV's. That would amount to misinforming the reader about the realities of the subject matter. Jon Awbrey 18:40, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Whether a person uses the scientific method or not is not a matter of opinion. It is not POV to say that Freud did not use the scientific method, because it is widely known that he did not use experiments to support his theories.Ivan 04:47, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • JA: Not all science is that kind of experimental science, as any review of history and the contemporary scene makes rather obvious. Much that passes, and that has to pass, for scientific knowledge cannot be acquired in that way. But that does not mean that researchers conducting other types of inquiry do not make appropriately or statistically controlled observations, formulate falsifiable hypotheses, generate deductions and predictions from their hypotheses, and test their predictions against real data. Jon Awbrey 05:02, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, I can't convince you that science has to adhere to the scientific method; for what it's worth the wikipedia science article points out that most scientists believe that it should. Also Freud's did not make statistically controlled observations nor are his hypotheses falsifiable. How does one falsify the psychosexual stages, for example? Ivan 05:48, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


Speaking of Freud, the last bit in the intro about the id and the unconscious is very out of place and written at a much lower standard than the rest of the article. I think it should be removed. If someone wants a reference to Freud, that's fine but the introduction is definitely not the place for that sort of thing. Perhaps a paragraph or a link could be added to the history section. 07:10, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, the article is much improved now. --Heida Maria 13:28, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm new at this (this is my first post), so please forgive any breaches of etiquette. I noted as I read the article that the description of Freud is what I would call 'more emotional' in contrast to the discussion of other figures in the history of psychology. For example, it says that Freud's theories were 'wildly successful'. One could say that Wundt was wildly successful too, as his experimental laboratory became the 'place to be' in psychology and many influential psychologists got their Ph.Ds through work there (I read a paper a decade or so ago that said most psychologists today can trace their history back to Wundt but I cannot find the reference). Or one could argue that behaviourism (oops, making visible my Canadian roots there) was wildly successful, and led to huge changes in the way psychology was taught and practiced (many since reverted of course). So why is Freud but no other described in this way?

The other emotional term is to say that discounting Freud has become 'fashionable'. That is a bit of a pejorative, isn't it? Implying that somehow folks who discredit him are merely following a trend rather than thinking about the issue. Would we say it is 'fashionable' to discredit behaviourism? Or 'humanism'? Both of those are ideas that have left a concept legacy within psychology.

If I were to get a vote, I would say that removing both those terms would make the article more evenly toned. If I wanted to help readers understand why they have heard of Freud but many psychologists do not reference him or his ideas in their everyday professional lives, I think I would mention the separation between clinical psychology and/or psychotherapy, from other branches of psychology (or maybe mention one of the biggest functional divisions in the field, which is basic vs applied psychology). I would also briefly point out the difference between psychology as it is taught and practiced by psychologists, and the ideas that have made it 'out' into the general media. Freud is still commonly discussed/cited in books/articles critically analyzing art and literature etc..

I do not understand the intent of the argument I read here about the scientific method and Freud. Is the intent to inform folks that people might differ in how they define the scientific method? Or is the intent to inform folks that Freud did not use the scientific method (as it is generally defined) to gather his observations? (PS I was amused a bit I must admit, as I know lots of academic psychologists were taught that Freud is an excellent example of an nonfalsifiable theory). My point is that, if I am confused, likely others are too. Why not make the intent clear, if it is to say that you think Freud used the scientific method but you are using a nonnormative definition of science, why not say so? Rhym 21:52, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Links removed

I apologize in advance for ruffling some feathers, but the links section was becoming a bit much. I've removed several links for the following reasons:

  • Spanish language sites are not appropriate for the English-language wiki.
  • Blogs abound and are non-encyclopedic, with no way of determining which of the thousands of existing psychology-related blogs to include.
  • The free essays site contains 5 copyrighted essays written by university students and is therefore not appropriate for wikipedia.
  • The University of Maryland site is a link to a professor's webpage with some links to some essays; again, these types of sites abound and there is no reason to favor one over another.
  • The "Fireflies in the Shadow of the Sun" is not a good representation of criticism of psychology, it is a person's views on psychology as a career choice. There are better, more concise, more coherent, well-referenced anti-psychology views out there.

Semiconscioustalk 19:32, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking these same things. The links sections are much better now. -Nicktalk 21:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree; less is more... --Heida Maria 00:01, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


The history section states that behaviorists did not believe in mental states. This is not very accurate, behaviorists believed that the mental states could not be scientifically studied, because introspectionists and Freudians have been trying to study mental states for decades and were and able to do so scientifically. They obviously believed in thought, and emotions, because they experienced them themselves. The sentence should be changed to reflect that.

Correct. Feel free to change that. --Heida Maria 00:01, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Also, cognitive psychology was a direct result of the shortcoming if behaviorism, it would make more sense to talk about it immediately after the Critique of behaviorism. Ivan 21:26, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

  • JA: Whether a given X-ist "believes in" or has a concept of Y, for example, awareness, consciousness, mental states, a Higher Power, or Santa Claus, is largely immaterial to the question of pertinence here, which is limited to whether a concept of Y is invoked in Theory X as a part of explaining the specifically psychological phenomena at issue. Jon Awbrey 13:46, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
    • There is a difference between saying that someone does not believe in mental states and saying that they choose not to study them. It is simply incorrect to say that behaviorists did not believe in the existence of mental states. I don't want readers to be mislead into thinking that behaviorists had some bizarre philosophical ideas that they did not. Ivan 05:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

On historical cycles

  • JA: Taking the long view of history — which involves looking at the persistent themes that pervade the transient terminologies and requires looking at more than just the last time through the loop — behaviorial thinking and cognitive thinking did not either of them arise in reaction to the other. The generic ideas that make up these two approaches have lain in the field for as long as anybody can remember or trace. The feature that marked our last atavar of B-ism was not an interest in behavior, which is a constant interest, but its died-in-the-wool dedication to a particular style of reductionism, a particular notch in Ockham's razor. Most folks today, even some B-ists, agree that its former models were not adequate to the res. The level of complexity in the theoretical models is the critical factor here, not the belief in a particular modality of being. In the past, and even currently, there are examples of theories that invoke "mental states" and such but that remain even more severely reductionist than any B-ist paradigm of the 1950's. Jon Awbrey 14:40, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Granted that saying that something developed in reaction to something else is always an oversimplification, it would still be better to discuss cognitive psychology after the critique of b-ism because (1) it would chronological and (2) cognitive psychology addressed those problems. Ivan 05:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Biological Psychology

Does anyone think that the biological psychology article should redirect to "neuropsychology"? On the account that they are essentially different terms for the same study?

Ivan 00:32, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Although they are definitely similar, biological psychology is a broader term because biological psychologists examine more than just the nervous system (e.g. hormones). So I think they should be separate. --Heida Maria 10:44, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree with that. Biological psychology is different enough for it's own article. On a second note about neuropsychology, I don't understand why it's explicitly named as an intermediary field in the introduction. Most general psychology programs on European universities involve biological psychology and neuropsychology in the standard program to a certain extend. --Mansize 18 April 2006

Discussion phase

  • JA: I have reverted the major changes made by an anonymous IP who did not show (or maybe know about?) the courtesy of using an edit line to describe changes, much less the courtesy of discussing what is clearly in need of discussion. I'm sorry about having to revert a couple of changes made after but folks should have known better than to allow that sort of sneak attack. We are in a discussion phase, and I personally prefer to do that without a lot of formal rigamarole. Much good can come of discussion from different angles, and I see no hurry about it. Jon Awbrey 13:28, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


  • JA: If it weren't kinda dull without an image, I would leave it out altogether. I have seen places where a bit of Java code cyclically or randomly selects a different image from a database of images each time one brings up the page, and it might be a good idea to ask around for something like that. In such a context, I'd have no problem with Wundt getting his 15 minutes of fame. However, the statement that "Wundt is generally acknowledged as a founder of experimental psychology" is not generally acknowledged — there's a not insignificant cadre of psychologists who assign that paternity to William James, and another crew who excavate rather deeper foundations. But we're really talking about eponymous icons here, not literal priority. Of Freud one can truthfully say that psychology as a whole, and not just this or that branch of it, has the shape it has today because of his impact on it. Jon Awbrey 14:12, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

On sweeping, chimneys or otherwise

If you are going to make sweeping changes in the future, please be sure to go back and make other changes made after the reverted alteration. This is just courtesy and now someone else has to do it. Semiconscioustalk 18:13, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • JA: I have made no sweeping changes to the article since I first glanced at it. That sweeping has been done by others. I encourage discussion in advance of any further sweeping. Jon Awbrey 18:20, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • You reverted an edit made seven edits back, thus reverting every edit made after the edits you found disagreeable. That is a sweeping change to the article. There was discussion (see here and here that indicated other editors approved of the changes that you dislike. I have undone the damage you caused, as well as tried to make this article more amenable to all parties involved, despite the fact that I believe every edit made by User: was justified. Semiconscioustalk 18:50, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • JA: There were "sweeping" changes made by anonymous IP without edit lines. Any good citizen should have reverted those immediately. As far as the rest of the changes, most of them were peremptory deletions of other people's contributions. I find it curious that a reversion restoring those contributions should be described as "destruction", but destruction is relative to POV, I guess. Jon Awbrey 19:00, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
We're on the same page here my friend as we're both working toward improving an article; let's not allow this tension to grow toward hostility, eh?
Now, I never used the word "destruction" anywhere, so I'm not sure what you're talking about when you say "I find it curious that a reversion restoring those contributions should be described as 'destruction'". In my edit summary I said you caused "damage", which has nothing to do with the content of your edits, any POV, or anything of that nature. Rather it refers to the style of your edit, which was to revert to a much older edit rather than cropping out the specific changes made by User: with which you disagreed. This is damaging to an article, as I had to then reinstate the changes made since that edit.
There was discussion of these changes on this page shown in the two links I provided you. Just because an editor does not (or forgets to; remember to Assume good faith) leave an edit summary does not negate the potential quality of those edits.
Indeed, you are the one that has made a major change, against consensus, without first bringing it to the talk page. User:'s edits were discussed here and other editors found those changes agreeable. However you made a unilateral decision to revert those changes, reverting other edits in the process, thus causing damage to the article that needed to be undone. Now you are softly claiming that my edits were "POV" by saying I called your edits "destructive", which I never did. Please do not continue along with this sort of approach, as I do not take such unfounded comments lightly.
Now, what I am asking of you is that--in the future--please read the discussion page to see what has been discussed regarding edits before you make assumptions about how others did not follow proper etiquette before making sweeping changes that go against consensus and criticizing the quality of another user's edits. Semiconscioustalk 19:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • JA: I have 1681 articles on my watchlist and a conference to get to. My attention to this article is limited to a certain interest in maintaining balance at the hub. There's enough good work already at the spin-off articles that it should not take much more work than that. I was reading the Talk Page and thought that we were at the beginning of a discussion when an Anonymous IP jumped all the guns at once, with no (0) edit line warnings. In Olympic terms, that's a scratch. The fact that 2 or 3 eds with a curious def of "everybody" agree on something does not a consensus make. Just because folks are not currently online does not mean that their input should not be duly weighed. I would defend the rights of previous contributors no matter what their POV. Jon Awbrey 20:06, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Good edits are good edits, whether they are anonymous or not, and whether there is an edit line or not. I sympathize that you have so many pages on your watchlist (and probably use such heuristics to make revert decisions), but Wikipedia is about quality not quantity. -Nicktalk 20:20, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I like the newest version of the article; it is neutral and hopefully acceptable to all parties. Let's all be friends now, shall we? :-) --Heida Maria 20:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Maybe the stuff about Freud should be moved to the scope of psychology section (and possibly criticism should be added). --Heida Maria 20:31, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • JA: Good edits are a matter of opinion. Just for future reference, edits made without edit lines are not good form, however good in content, since they do not give others a fair chance to evaluate their goodness. And multiple edits made without edit lines lose the benefit of the doubt as far as being considered accidental stealth. Jon Awbrey 20:40, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • A): It is likely no one cares how many articles you have on your watchlist, nor how many edits you've made.
  • B): Your changes had less consent than the anon users' changes; any argument you make about consensus building is hypocritical at best. This is something you are failing to grasp.
  • C): The edits were by an anon IP; in all likelihood they are unaware of wikietiquette. Their edits seemed to be in good faith. Even though they did not leave comments in their edit summary they did leave comments on this talk page. This is just as good.
  • D): Please do not bite the newcomers.
  • E): The "compare differences" link isn't that difficult to follow.
  • F): I agree that just because users aren't online their opinions should not be heard. However when two other editors voice consent and a third (me) gives silent consent, with no dissenting voices, it seems that the changes are in all likelihood good.
  • G): Have fun at the conference; no matter what our disagreements, we're all wikipedians, and this really isn't that big of a deal. :)
Semiconscioustalk 21:09, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • JA: We differ in how we assess consensus. I said from the start that I prefer to keep it informal. I mention the constraints on attention because it is a generic issue, and one of the reasons to insist on edit lines. Yes, it is silly that I have to repeat what should be understood. I'll be back. Jon Awbrey 21:46, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


I find that the background section detracts from the article. For one thing it's not very well written, but more importantly it contains no important information - it has a few tidbits about Freud and social psychology both of which are covered better in other parts of the article - Freud is talked about in the history section, and social psychology is in the “scopes of psychology” section. It's also interesting to note that the paragraph on Freud is same paragraph that was deleted earlier from the introduction.

Needless to say, I think it should be removed.

Ivan 06:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I just put it there out of deference to User:Jon Awbrey's views. Let's wait a few days to hear more sides of the argument before removing it, however. Semiconscioustalk 07:00, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
I am for my part fine with having it removed.--Heida Maria 12:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
I suggest that if no one expresses disagreement within the next two days the section should be removed. --Heida Maria 00:12, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you all, and was bold and removed it. /skagedal... 00:52, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Study of animals in psychology

Some brief reference could be made here to Skinner and Radical Behaviourism, and include the point that this work led to more humane treatment of animals, particularly in Zoos. This is as punishment has been used less and less and positive reinforcement is used.

Yes, this is a fine idea. However, can you reference that fact? --Heida Maria 11:30, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

POV's on scientific method

  • JA: The use of pejorative terms like "unscientific" in reference to Freud's work as a whole is indicative of one POV with respect to Freud, one POV with respect to psychology, and one POV with respect to what constitutes science. I recognize these three POV's. I think that they deserve a voice. I recognize also that they are not the only POV's on their respective subject matters. I think that other POV's also deserve a voice. I'm not sure that a generic hub article on Psychology is the place to negotiate the claims of these various voices, but neither is it the place to slant a very diverse field in one direction or the other. NPOV does mean a denial of the fact that there are different POV's. That would amount to misinforming the reader about the realities of the subject matter. Jon Awbrey 18:40, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Whether a person uses the scientific method or not is not a matter of opinion. It is not POV to say that Freud did not use the scientific method, because it is widely known that he did not use experiments to support his theories.Ivan 04:47, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • JA: Not all science is that kind of experimental science, as any review of history and the contemporary scene makes rather obvious. Much that passes, and that has to pass, for scientific knowledge cannot be acquired in that way. But that does not mean that researchers conducting other types of inquiry do not make appropriately or statistically controlled observations, formulate falsifiable hypotheses, generate deductions and predictions from their hypotheses, and test their predictions against real data. Jon Awbrey 05:02, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, I can't convince you that science has to adhere to the scientific method; for what it's worth the wikipedia science article points out that most scientists believe that it should. Also Freud's did not make statistically controlled observations nor are his hypotheses falsifiable. How does one falsify the psychosexual stages, for example? Ivan 05:48, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • JA: I never said anything about science failing to adhere to the scientific method. There are indeed POV's that question how much "method" there is to science, but I was not raising that sort of issue here. We are not actually talking about Freud anymore, since the POV that you are expressing about what constitutes scientific method would disqualify the lion's share of what most practicing scientists call scientific research, from algebra to astrophysics to automata theory to the use of animal models in human medicine. For example, the moment that one resorts to any sort of reasoning by analogy, one is no longer on the straight-&-narrow path of pure experimental method, since the analogy involves assumptions that are not controlled and not being tested in the process.
  • JA: So the POV that limits scientific method to the particular type of experimental method that you appear to regard as the only legitimate type is just that, one POV. There are good reasons to question whether that POV can even be held to with any sort of logical consistency. At any rate, a large part, if not the largest part what most scientific researchers rightly call scientific knowledge was arrived at by a less narrow style of scientific method. Jon Awbrey 05:02, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Links to portals

Hi! Do we need to link to both Portal:Psychology and Portal:Mind and Brain? I think it looks a little cluttered. I suggest removing the link to Portal:Mind and Brain, which is easily accessible from Portal:Psychology. /skagedal... 16:43, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I would prefer if you just moved it further down, e.g. to the subsections about mind and brain.--Heida Maria 16:50, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Ah, that is an excellent suggestion. /skagedal... 17:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

"and Exerises"

Under "schools of thought", it read:

Some psychologists may think of themselves as adherents to a particular school of thought and reject the others, although most consider each as an approach to understanding the mind, and not necessarily as mutually exclusive theories and Exerises.

I have no idea what was meant by "and Exerises", I'm guessing maybe "exercises"? But does that make sense? So I removed it. Please fix if you disagree... /skagedal... 17:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Psychology

Hi all! I just started Wikipedia:WikiProject Psychology. I hope some of you will join in and discuss what needs to be done in this area. /skagedal... 16:14, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this looks quite as interesting. I will take a good look at it Hylas Chung 08:02, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Forgiveness theories in Psychology

I have been working on the forgiveness article. The section on "Psychological theories about forgiveness" in that article needs work. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks. --speet 13:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi RSpeeter. I have come across some studies on this a few years ago. I'll take a look. Ksinpoint 04:10, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Psychology Societies External links

Will anyone complain if I replace the list of psychology societies with a link to ? These links are not in keeping with the policy Wikipedia is not a repository of links -- Barrylb 23:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't complain. --Heida Maria 14:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
My main corcern is I don't know the degree of systemic bias that web site has. Perhaps one safeguard for what's here would be to double-check if something is not there and nominate it for inclusion if it isn't. Another suggestion is to add a commented note under the External links section with a suggestion to check for the link at the other site and nominate it there, if needed. Rfrisbietalk 14:39, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree that these links should be removed, but instead of a dmoz link, maybe a List of psychology organizations (including psychology societies) would be in order? /skagedal... 19:17, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
I did so, and added a link to among the links. /skagedal... 21:52, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

history of the term "psychology"

The section entitled "history" attributes the invention of the word "psychology" to Goclenius (accompanied by his image on right). However, there is no citing information for this claim. Academically, there are competing claims as to who was the first to use "psychology". One claim is that is the german Melanchthon (1497-1560). It is also unclear as to whether the significance should be on the coining of the term or its first use in the "literature". Either way, there is enough information to 1) include Melancthon alongside Goclenious or 2) downplay the strong claim re: goclenius. Please discuss ( i have not made any changes...)Platypusjones 16:52, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes I have read about this also. I will try to find the reference. Pacificsun 02:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Natural science

Is psychology a natural or a social science? --Arado 10:45, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

It is typically thought of as a social science. Some people consider it part of a more specific category; the behavioral sciences. At universities, however, psychology departments are usually grouped (for administrative purposes) with other departments, and these groupings can differ. Most schools group psychology with other social sciences (sociology, political science, etc); however, other schools may group psychology with natural sciences or even with the humanities. Psychology is such a broad area that some areas (e.g. clinical, developmental, social) seem much more "social science-y" while other areas (physiological, behavioral neuroscience) seem more like a natural science. -Nicktalk 18:57, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
an interesting question. i would agree to an extent with Nick that it is a social science, but that classification is also a little more complex. it is a social science that is primarily based on what are considered to be natural scientific principles: objective measurement, standardization, explanation, prediction and control. in sum, the mainstream view since wundt and james in the late 19th century was that people could be studied the way physical phenomena are studied by the "hard" sciences (physics, astronomy, biology). conversely, some psychologists argue that the natural scientific paradigm is insufficient to meet the needs of beings as unique as humans. this argument does not make psychology any less a "social" science, but some psychologists maintain different methods (e.g. qualitative instead of quantitative) should be used.Platypusjones 16:51, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Parent Tapes

I tried to find an article on "parent tapes" but wasn't able to locate one. I asked in IRC and someone said to post here to find out where to add it. I started writing a completely new article but I guess adding onto an existing, related article is considered proper.Lone wanderer 06:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Help maintain the psychology portal

Hello all. Please help us update the psychology portal :) I have recently changed the selected psychologist, and added a few other things, but more needs to be done. --Heida Maria 20:22, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

NLP is the most advanced, so why is it left out?

Why does NLP - neurolinguistic programming not get a good mention. Its clearly the most advanced form of psychology in the 21st century. The methods used can cure in a single session. That's gotta be about 100 times better than the other previous moneygrabbing therapies. Mindstore 03:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

It is not psychology and most psychologists believe NLP is a pseudoscience. So please don't include it in the article, it would be embarassing. --Heida Maria 11:51, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Wrong! NLP is supported by a very large number of psychology bodies. Just check the NLP article.

They know it is powerful. Other psychologists don't want it supported because it will damage their moneyraking scams. (its very fast and powerful as a therapy (modern neuroscience also supports it) Mindstore 02:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Basically the whole NLP article says that its heavily disputed and that most people believe it's a pseudoscience. The articles in no way shows that NLP is supported by 'a very large number of psychology bodies". Sparkleyone 06:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
The NLP article's been skewed by known (blocked) vandals and is unhelpful. None the less, even when repaired, the accolades being added to it under this article are incorrect too, being excessively exaggerated. Hope that clarifies. Hence I as well as other editors have removed them regardless. FT2 (Talk | email) 09:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Concerns of psychology researchers

Hello. Here's a suggestion that can sort out the pseudoscience static. There is a growing awareness of the practitioner research gap [1]. I added part of this criticism and its solution in the article. It relates to many other parts of psychology and places the above issue in a proper light. I'm sure a lot of related articles can be adjusted based on this growing issue and its solutions. I'd say if it is kept to its own small paragraph and holds proper citations, then it should be easy to manage as a fact. Also, there are other related references you can see on the link, plus a core piece of literature (Science and pseudoscience in psychology Lilienfeld 2004). Psychologists are doing a lot now to raise awareness about pseudos pretending to be psychology. Plus undergrad psych courses are being designed in order to properly inform students of the issues. Savoylettuce 03:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Psychiatry vs. psychology article?

I'm going to be posting this around at a few of the affected articles, but I was thinking of creating a separate article comparing psychiatry and psychology and counseling in general. I think there is a lot of confusion in the world as to the differences and similarities and Wikipedia could be a great resource to come to for those who aren't professionals in these related fields.

Kind of an example, psychiatrists carry a MD doctorate whereas psychologists & clinical psychologists carry a PhD doctorate. Perhaps we could explain differences in training and specialties. (ie you'll find more psychologists counseling marriages then psychiatrists, but you'll find more psychiatrists treating mental illnesses then psychologists.)

Anyway, I wanted to create this article and perhaps link to it on many of the related articles. Thoughts??? Chupper 20:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

A good idea. Important considerations:
  1. Choose a suitable title. Probably best to suggest a list and have an informal poll/discussion
  2. Rather than a simple comparison, use the article to place them all in a comparable context. Here is the background to helping people with emotions, mental health, life in general, and the areas and way its split up, here are the different fields tackling it and the approach and philosophy each takes and the areas each tries to cover and what each tries to achieve.
  3. Neesds to cover as you say, psychiatry and psychology and counseling, but also phsychotherapy.
  4. Needs to invite non-US views. Not all countriews have the same structure, but also, not all countries have the same philosophy and views. Some are more mechanistic 9drugs/fucntion) some more structural, some more psychological etc. So a "variations by region" section too.
FT2 (Talk | email) 01:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Well I went ahead and created it, sorry if I was hasty. I named the article Mental health professional. I took into consideration what you said. I thought it might be a good idea to compare psychiatrists, psychologists, social workers AND therapists. There seems to be this annoying rift between all these professions when they are so related. Hopefully this article brings that together so someone who doesn't know much about the differences in the professions can be enlightened. I didn't include phsychotherapy. I don't know much about this topic if someone could att that in. The non-US views are sort of tricky. I included what I could and if something was US biased, I said it was (i.e. "in the United States this is how it works yada yada"). Anyway, the article needs a lot of work. It's brand new created by someone who knows almost nothing about the stuff, so feel free to correct & update. My only goal was unity and a place for a comparable context. I just hope that theme can stay present in the article. Chupper 02:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Heading titles

Short of Applied Psychology, all the headings under the "Scope of Psychology" section name specific topics in psychology--i.e. "Biological basis of behavior", "Social interaction", etc. However, for purposes uniformity and usefulness, I'd like to suggest that these titles be replaced with their respective subfields--i.e. "Biological Psychology" instead of "Biological basis of behavior", "Social Psychology" vs "Social interaction", etc., and maybe grouped under a heading titled "Research Psychology". Any thoughts on this suggestion? –Prototime (talkcontribs) 02:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Since it's been about a week and there's been no response, I've gone ahead and made these changes and also some other adjustments to the subfields. –Prototime (talkcontribs) 23:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Related Areas

Under "Related Areas" I'd like to suggest adding "Psychology of Women" or "Psychology of Gender." Comments? --Kirsten319 15:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

That may work, but aren't those areas more of sub-areas of the field of psychology as opposed to related areas? –Prototime (talkcontribs) 19:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Prototime. --Heida Maria 20:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I've seen them grouped with psychology or with women's studies - I've seen both departments of psych and women's studies departments offering "Psych of Gender/Women" courses. I just wanted to throw it out there as a possibility for expansion and see what people thought. --Kirsten319 16:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
That is probably true, but what about just including gender studies as a related field? I think Psych of Gender/Women is to specific. --Heida Maria 16:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
That works for me, too. --Kirsten319 18:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

"See also" sections typically are used for other articles that are not previously referenced in the one of interest. I did a quick scan of List of psychology topics and Category:Psychology. I didn't see anything that looked much like "Psychology of Women" or "Psychology of Gender" articles to me. I would think that the location of the relevant content in other articles as they stand now should be the main determinant of where it is referenced in this article. Rfrisbietalk 16:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

That may be so, but just because an article doesn't appear in the List of psychology topics or Category:Psychology as it stands now doesn't mean that it shouldn't be. In the case of "Psychology of Gender" and the like, I'd most certainly argue that such a topic belongs in the List of psychology topics article and categorized under Category:Psychology, and likewise those those amendments should be made. "Psychology of Gender", etc. can then placed on this page accordingly. –Prototime (talkcontribs) 20:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
My main point simply is content should determine placement. You can put a red link in a list but not in a category. If some content already is out there on the topic, which I couldn't find, then that should determine where it goes in this article. Rfrisbietalk 20:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Ah, yes, I agree. –Prototime (talkcontribs) 02:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC)