Talk:Social psychology/archive3

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

This forgettable stub

This page has predictably been turned into a stub after being ransacked by the split. Moreover, the divided SSP and PSP pages (up until recently) had each featured identical material. I think some material (copied below) really ought to belong here, so as to make the common article larger, and so as to make the most out of the division of labor. I am posting first on this talk page, in order to warn interested parties that I'll be placing the material back up in one week, unless and until they give some attention and consideration to the matter (such as reasons why this is inappropriate, etc). Lucidish { Ben S. Nelson } 19:57, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

General research interests

Social Psychology Diagram
Social Psychology Diagram

Social psychology attempts to understand the relationship between minds, groups, and behaviors in three general ways.

First, it tries to see how the thoughts, feelings and behaviors of individuals are influenced by the actual, imagined, or implied presence of other(s) (Allport 3). This includes social perception, social interaction, and the many kinds of social influence (like trust, power, and persuasion). Gaining insight into the social psychology of persons involves looking at the influences that individuals have on the beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors of other individuals, as well as the influence that groups have on individuals. This aspect of social psychology asks questions like:

  • How do small group dynamics impact cognition and emotional states?
  • How do social groups control or contribute to behavior, emotion, or attitudes of the individual members?
  • How does the group impact the individual?
  • How does the individual operate within the social group?

Second, it tries to understand the influence that individual perceptions and behaviors have upon the behavior of groups. This includes looking at things like group productivity in the workplace and group decision making. It looks at questions like:

  • How does persuasion work to change group behavior, emotion or attitudes?
  • What are the reasons behind conformity, diversity, and deviance?

Third, and finally, social psychology tries to understand groups themselves as behavioral entities, and the relationships and influences that one group has upon another group (Michener 5). It asks questions like:

  • What makes some groups hostile to one another, and others neutral or civil?
  • Do groups behave in a different way than an individual outside the group?

Specific research interests

The scope of social psychological research. Based on input from Cote and Levine, 2002.

Some of the basic topics of interest in social psychology are:

  • Impression Formation - which investigates the cognitive processes underlying the way we form impressions of others. This includes the biases guiding our impressions, the inferences we make, and the weight we give to different pieces of information.
  • Social Judgment - which investigates the cognitive processes underlying our beliefs about the social world. Some of the heuristics or “rules of thumb” include the availability heuristic, representativeness heuristic, and anchoring and adjustment. We are sometimes also biased toward over-attributing our own personal beliefs to society at large, i.e. the false consensus effect. Some people also tend to believe in a just world which can lead to blaming the victim in some circumstances.
  • Communication delves into the learning and processing of verbal and non-verbal language. One core issue in the study of communication is social influence, an area of research which studies the methods people use to make others obey an authority or conform to group expectations.
  • Attitudes – The focus of this area is the study of the relationship between attitudes and behavior and the use of persuasive communication to change attitudes. The primary theories used to explain and predict the relationship between attitudes and behavior are the theories of reasoned action (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980) and planned behavior (Ajzen, 1985). The primary theory of attitude change is the Elaboration Likelihood Model (Petty & Caccioppo, 1986).
  • Group Processes - includes the study of group formation, effectiveness and influences on the individual.
  • Close Relationships - Social Psychologists in this area study the processes underlying relationship formation, maintenance and dissolution. Prominent theories in this area are Interdependence Theory (Rusbult, Agnew & Arriaga, 2001) and Attachment theory (Reis & Patrick, 1996).
  • Social learning examines the agents, processes, and outcomes of learning. Socialization investigates the learning of community standards, rules, attitudes, roles, values, and beliefs. Related to both, Developmental psychology looks at the contribution of both nature and nurture in production of social behavior.

One week has passed

I am now re-integrating the above material into this page. Discussion, etc. is, as always, welcome. Lucidish { Ben S. Nelson } 17:23, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Response to "This forgettable stub"

Lucidish, you still haven't answered the basic question that a half-dozen people (most with Ph.D.s in this subject) have put to you in various forms and that underlies most of the discussion on this and the archived Talk pages: Where is it that genuinely interdisciplinary social psychology is being done? They have told you that it is not being done in psychology departments (which seems to contradict your astoundingly arrogant comment above that you have shown the consensus to be wrongheaded), and they don't think it's being done in sociology departments. Can you name a professional peer-reviewed journal that is devoted to it? Can you name a professional association devoted to it?

I'd encourage you to develop this page to report on the kind of social psychology that is genuinely interdisciplinary, and not just rebuild it into what it was, which raised so many complaints by experts - experts who realized that their time was better spent elsewhere than arguing with you.

On your userpage you say: "Everything meaningful I've done has been done alone." I hope you discover that you will be more successful and happy in life if you learn how to work with people. -DoctorW 04:43, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

DoctorW, first, what you've done here is far from being a reply to my most recent post. My request in "this forgettable stub" was relatively mundane. There are certain topics that both subdisciplines share. I would like to mention these topics here, to avoid redundancy in the sub-articles. Your input is welcome on this matter first and foremost.
Second, re: the broader worry about disciplinary boundaries. Where is interdisciplinary SP being done? Well, insofar as we understand social cognition as a key tradition in SSP (as it is regarded in at least one citation -- see the Hollander/Howard reference on the SSP page), then SSP itself can be regarded as the interdisciplinary effort. So the answer would be "anywhere SSP is taken seriously". (Don't just take my word for it: look at JStor, search within Social Psychology Quarterly for the phrase "social cognition". 121 matches.) Also, Jerry White (former soc. chair at Western) recently told me that an interdisciplinary research group is arising there; maybe it'll fall apart like the others, or maybe the intellectual climate will be more favorable. We'll see.
As for specific journals, "Identity", which was spearheaded by Jim Cote at Western, is one. Needless to say, the fact that it deals with a particular subject within SP, and not the SP interdiscipline itself, is not relevant to your challenge. Anyway, I would be very, very surprised if it was the only effort out there.
Now I've disagreed with you, and with others, and written at length on my reasons for disagreement. I can repeat my concerns, and we can talk about it more, if you like. But if you believe the mere fact that I disagree is "arrogant", then you will quickly find that this particular well of words has dried up. To be perfectly clear: I am saddened by your umbrage, and recognize that the views I have are not appropriate to act on here. But I cannot say I sympathize, understand, or respect your reaction, and I think we'd both benefit if we confined our comments to the issues. Lucidish { Ben S. Nelson } 00:28, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
I think with interdisciplinary dr W meant Sociological-Psychological Soc Psy interdisciplinary; as that seems to be the focus here. If considering Social Cognition as interdisciplinary it is between Cognitive Psychology and Social Psychology (Psychology). So that would have no place here as it is both (hardcore) psychology. Arnoutf 07:24, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
I interpreted the question as being about content of research interests, and whether there was such a body of work which consults research from the sociology and psychology disciplines to the extent that it affects major paradigms within the interdiscipline. If you believe social cognition to be outside of SSP, then take up the matter with Hollanger, Howard, and (for that matter) every SSP researcher who allow topics in psychology to affect their work.
If instead I were to interpret the question as, "is such a thing called social psychological social psychology?", then I wouldn't know where to begin with an answer, since I don't really know what SPSP means if it is supposed to be a category of research that is independent of both SSP and PSP. I doubt that anybody would claim to be researching any work that could be described as SPSP, with the possible exception of the interactionists following Newcomb. But this would be an issue more involving semantics than substance, and so (I take it) was not DrW's point. Lucidish { Ben S. Nelson } 02:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Sorry about the SPSPS or even more S-es and or P-s confusion - I never meant anything with that, just a hastily made typing error. Sticking with SSP and PSP is difficult enough.
I thought that Social Cognition was typically for the PSP domain; but apparently it is also big in the SSP domain; which I did not realise. So please don't put to much weight in my remarks above. Arnoutf 07:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
No prob. Lucidish { Ben S. Nelson } 15:03, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Lucidish, when you say "if you believe the mere fact that I disagree is 'arrogant'...", you demonstrate that you were not listening to what was being said (a key ingredient in cooperating with others, btw). This also seems to be the case in your not responding to the key concerns of the consensus (which in this case consists in large part of editors with Ph.D.s in psychology). Not only that, you made the claim that you had shown that consensus to be wrongheaded (which is what I said was arrogant).

Now you seem to be restoring the original page, still brazenly ignoring the concerns of the experts, following only your own vision. Can't you at least pretend to take into account the opinions of others? Do you still reject the primacy of [1] Social psychology (psychology) and [2] Social psychology (sociology) over this page Social psychology? "Umbrage" is not quite the right word; more accurate would be "exasperation".

I can see two possible roles for this page. [1] As a short explanation that people should go to one of the other pages, or [2] the treatment I suggested, which I thought would please you and be right up your alley:

  • I'd encourage you to develop this page to report on the kind of social psychology that is genuinely interdisciplinary, and not just rebuild it into what it was, which raised so many complaints by experts - experts who realized that their time was better spent elsewhere than arguing with you.

-DoctorW 19:08, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

First, I sincerely apologize for the "minor edit" box. That was an accident.
Second, the material itself (posted above) is what I wanted you to comment on, because of its SP-generic nature. There's nothing controversial in it. Or perhaps I'm wrong. But you've been given a week, complete with warning. You said nothing that was both pertinent and concrete, but rather, just brought up the broader issues and your feelings on them. So I followed through on the original plan.
None of this, incidentally, has anything to do with the synoptic view of social psychology. It is merely an identification of genuine common ground, and an attempt to grow upon an entirely forgettable stub. If you disagree on specific points, then it is crucial that you say which ones; if you believe that the most recent proposal is a "reinvention" of social psychology, then surely it would be quite an easy task to show why you believe that, by pointing to certain bits of undesirable text. But throwing the whole thing out without careful consideration is quite a dubious tactic.
I don't want to say much about the appeal to authority in general, which is what you're invoking. I will say, though, that a genuine authority in these matters would be one who has been exposed to both SSP and PSP literatures, and thus, has some idea about what they two genuinely do -- and genuinely don't -- have in common. I would be more assured that you were such an authority if you were to recognize and comment on (at the very least) the most recent citation, re: social cognition in SSP. If that's unacceptable for some reason, say why.
Third, I have granted for a long time now that SSP and PSP deserve their own pages. This was due to the civil, reasoned dialogue with Albanynewyorker. I do not think I've been ambiguous about this. However, I also think, along the lines of your proposal [2], that this page deserves a fair bit more than it has got.
Regarding "arrogance", I'm afraid the difference amounts to nothing. No matter who holds this or that opinion, it alters and challenges nothing at all about the content of the dispute. I have addressed every single issue that I could discern was brought to the table, provided rebuttals, read carefully, revised my replies, etc, and above all, tried to cooperate through patience, explicitness, deferrence, and diplomacy. If you feel I have overlooked a "key concern", then state what; first, though, you might consider reviewing the text for argument and evidence, because it's all there, and as you mentioned, it goes back a year.
When all of this is taken into consideration, and one tries to find the origin of your "exasperation", the only core possible explanation left over is exactly what I indicated -- outrage over mere disagreement. By any ordinary standard, this is not to be tolerated in reasoned discourse, and constitutes one of the most obvious kinds of flouting of cooperative conversation imaginable. This is unfortunate. Lucidish { Ben S. Nelson } 20:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps there's just a difference in the style of work in our two worlds. What is your vision for this page? I've made a suggestion (twice now) but you have not commented on it. It seems that you're just restoring the old page. How will it be different from the old page, and how do you intend to make it clear to readers what the relation of the 3 articles is? -DoctorW 07:35, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
My vision for this particular page is threadbare. All I want to do is post the major topics of interest (common to both PSP and SSP); for instance, group dynamics, socialization, social cognition, linguistic issues, etc. I also think there's no harm in putting back a description of the different units of analysis. These two sections were part of the old page, true, but IIRC they weren't the parts which aroused any controversy. Among the things lacking from the old version: no more social philosophy, no more "major theories", no more research methods, no more research ethics. Also, the intro should contain small summaries of SSP and PSP, as it does now. Lucidish { Ben S. Nelson } 03:55, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

for what it's worth...

It is with some hesitation that I step into this debate, but I agree with the folks who think that the "social psychology" entry should be relatively short, probably not much longer than it is now. That way, interested parties will move on to either the psych page or the socio page with rapid efficiency. There may be some cross-fertilization here and there, and a few shared concepts, but I really don't think there is any substantial interdisciplinary social psychology between these two very different fields. When I talk to my sociological colleagues that teach social psychology, I feel that I may as well be talking to my friends in history or economics. Maybe in an ideal world, but we are all too specialized now to bridge that gap. From an evolutionary standpoint, it's a bit like trying to mate chimps and gorillas. Not that I'm calling anyone here an ape, mind you. Jcbutler 07:49, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. In the sense of what the consensus is (and thus what this page deserves), the debate is over, and the disciplinarians won out some time ago. Though I respectfully disagree with the consensus -- I don't think that the difference between subjects is quite so dramatic as the consensus opinion (and whatever difference exists is quite contrived), am extremely sympathetic to Newcomb (and Cote, and Levine), and think that SSP is a subject that makes the best candidate for an "interdiscipline" -- I've still deferred to the consensus opinion in all practical respects.
The present issue (in "this forgettable stub") is quite different, though, having to do with what genuine common ground exists between the two -- what the two generally have in common. I think that the sections (copied and pasted from above) are excellent candidates for common ground, and I think that it would be redundant to have that material on both SSP and PSP pages. Lucidish { Ben S. Nelson } 15:33, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I like the diagrams and some of the content in "general research interests." I would recommend against the content in "specific research interests" as that is best handled by individual pages in psychology and sociology. Socialization, for example, is probably something that is studied more by developmental psychologists than (psychological) social psychologists, and I'm not sure I know what dramaturgy is, other than that it's something sociological... Mostly, I think this page should be not much more than screen size. Primarily a disambiguation page, with a short overview of common issues. Jcbutler 16:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Losing "Dramaturgy" isn't a big deal (for the record, it's one perspective in the examination of impression formation and execution, with territory in the linguistic field of pragmatics). But it's not especially relevant in this context and for our purposes. It seems that we could get rid of the subfields altogether and not lose anything important.
That being said, I think the list has at least a few candidates, like impression formation, social influence, and communication, which are generic enough to deal with the projects of both fields.
I must say though that I don't recognize how "developmental psychology" is divorced from PSP. It wasn't my impression that psychology (and thus PSP) tends towards ontogenetic analysis and away from phylogenetic ones. I crack open my Psych text, for example, and find Kohlberg's stages of moral reasoning, Erikson's model of the life-course, etc. And the Michener text on Social psychology has an entire chapter on socialization. (Not so coincidentally, Michener et al share my conciliatory outlook wrt SSP-PSP. "...these differences [between SSP and PSP] are best viewed as complementary rather than as conflicting. Social psychology as a field is the richer for the differing contributions of both approaches." p.5.) Lucidish { Ben S. Nelson } 01:12, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Michener has a chapter on socialization, does he? I can't find a reference here, but I would be willing to bet that Michener is a sociologist, not a psychologist. Not that there is anything wrong with that (Seinfeld reference), but this is the kind of confusion I would like to avoid on this page. The dilemma is that of writing a short page that can actually represent a combination of two quite different fields.

You suggest that communication is another area of common ground, but the description I read above is primarily sociological as well. Psychological social psychologists dabble in communication a bit, particularly nonverbal communication, but it is not a mainstream part of the field. I happen to love Deborah Tannen's work on the sociolinguistics of gender, but I certainly wouldn't put it here. Nor would I put my own interest in rejection sensitivity research. To so so would be to give a misleading idea of what most social psychologists do. Jcbutler 05:16, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the reference, like most material from this page, was scuttled by the usual suspects. That's why you can't find it. Anyway the ref. is (Michener, Andrew H.; et al. (2004). Social Psychology (fifth edition ed.). Belmont: Wadsworth. {{cite book}}: |edition= has extra text (help); Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help)) While it is true that Michener, DeLamater, and Myers are all working as sociologists, it would be wrong to suggest that they're unfamiliar with the psychology involved. A quick look at DeLamater's CV shows as much.
Of course, this all has to do with what material substantively overlaps and what doesn't. One way to achieve that end is to ask people who are genuine authorities, i.e., are familiar with both fields. To do anything less is to be confused and to perpetuate confusion, and this is exactly what I'm trying to avoid.
Economy of words is a fair concern, but the sections above are extremely short, so there's no dilemma.
Rejection sensitivity research is a very specialized topic, so naturally it wouldn't be appropriate here because of space constraints. But either affiliation relations, or interpersonal attraction, or attachment would certainly be topics wide enough to mention.
And communication is well recognized as a part of the field, especially concerning attitudes and attitude change. Or at least, so I gather, from reading another text -- this one a pure psych text. (Passer, Michael W.; et al. (2003). Psychology: Frontiers and Applications (first edition ed.). Toronto: McGraw-Hill. pp. 498–504. {{cite book}}: |edition= has extra text (help); Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help)) Also as suggested by the user below. Of course, if the description of communication research that's been given is misleading, and overly emphasizes sociological perspectives, then we can change it with no harm done. Lucidish { Ben S. Nelson } 16:16, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree with one of the above comments that this article would idealy not be more than a single screen extended disambiguation page. About Communication: Persuasive communication is a typically Psych Social Psychology field (this lead e.g. to ELM and need for cognition theories Petty & Cacioppo). Arnoutf 08:43, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that is very true. I was speaking of communication in the sense that it is presented above, in terms of learning, socialization, and social structures. Psychologists would approach it in terms persuasion research, such as ELM and NFC, as you pointed out. It just seems to me that these are issues best spelled out on the individual pages, not here. Jcbutler 16:11, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

You are right there. However, an adjusted (more balanced) form of communication may be a good example for interdisciplinary; at least from my own experience with colleagues in Communication Sciences in the Netherlands this an area where psychology social psychologists; sociologists and even antropologists cooperate. Arnoutf 17:50, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

The purpose of this page

I'd like to add my opinion to the two above who explicitly stated that [1] the purpose of this page should be to clarify the needed disambiguation and quickly send people on to other pages, and [2] that it should be no more than one screen in length. Other psychologists who have been saying similar things for a year would most likely be supportive.

I am very supportive of interdisciplinary research, and I originally thought that as a concession to Lucidish this page could double as a page on interdisciplinary social psychology (this is distinct from "what they have in common" btw) as long as it was brief. I now realize that this would be quite inappropriate, as it would elevate interdisciplinary social psychology above PSP and SSP. From both the discussions here and from Google searches, I have the strong impression that most social psychology is carried out by psychologists, so if any page were to be considered primary it would have to be Social psychology (psychology). Those disappointed that psychologists are not carrying out their work in a way that is more interdisciplinary should take it up with the field.

It seems to me there are two choices for what to do with interdisciplinary social psychology material. [1] Put it on the page Social psychology (interdisciplinary), or [2] put it on the page Social psychology (sociology) in an "interdisciplinary" section. The latter suggestion assumes that interdisciplinary social psychology is being carried out essentially by sociologists, which is a vague impression of mine based on the discussions here. It certainly seems to be the case that sociologists borrow much more from psychological theory than the converse. I'm not familiar with genuinely cross-disciplinary research being done, and I wonder how much is actually being carried out. I think it's pretty undeniable that the original version of this page had almost nothing on it that was recognizable to psychologists (except the few things I added myself). -DoctorW 23:19, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I did some trimming to make the page read better. I removed things that were already addressed in PSP and SSP pages (links, references), and made some edits to the text. Also, there seems to be an interdisciplinary page already in existence, but it redirects to the general SP page. -Nicktalk 23:37, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
It may be entirely true that most research under the name of SP has accumulated in the PSP tradition. That having been said, even granting that it is true, it wouldn't affect the thing that I've been asking for lately: that what the two genuinely do have in common, be listed here in order to avoid redundancy. (Agreed, the language of "interdiscipline" is misleading; it's a holdover from my true, and now dormant, opinions on this matter, but not felicitous in this context.) Still very much interested in hearing criticisms, improvements, etc. to the sections copied to this page. Lucidish { Ben S. Nelson } 01:28, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
i think the true interdiscipline is to be found in applied fields eg criminology, communication science, health psyhcology, general social science, rather than in mainstream (fundamental) psychology or sociology. Perhaps a reference to these applied fields would suffice Arnoutf 10:02, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't see how general social science or criminology would qualify as genuinely interdisciplinary SP. They're too broad. The only one on the list which seems like a plausible candidate is communication studies. Lucidish { Ben S. Nelson } 00:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
this may seem like a minor point now, but I think the forum is being misled into thinking that sociological social psychology is interdisciplinary. Sociologists are notorious for underutilizing psychological research and/or theory in their research, even when it's pertinent. The main areas of research in sociological social psychology are identity theory, affect-control theory, network exchange theory, expectations states theory, and self research (in the Rosenberg tradition). None of these theories adopts much of anything from psychology (the exception being Burke's identity theory which borrows some concepts from Swann's research on self-verification). I agree that if you look into a social psych text written by sociologists that a lot of the material is borrowed from psychology. However, that's mainly because there isn't enough content on the sociological side of things to write an entire undergrad text on social psychology (a required course in many soc. depts).
Furthermore, social cognition is by no means a real area of research in sociology. Howard sometimes writes articles on social cognition for sociological handbooks b/c of her grad. training in attribution back in the 80s. She has continued to do some attribution research here and there, but that is by no means "social cognition".
Furthermore, a look at Delameter's CV shows that he isn't qualified to evaluate the social psychology that psychologists do. He has not published in a psychological journal since 1984 and none of his research focuses on what is currently the meat and potatoes of psychological social psychology (social cognition, attitude change, close relationships, small groups, intergroup relations). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.31.52.223 (talk • contribs)
Any argument that admits that "if you look into a social psych text written by sociologists that a lot of the material is borrowed from psychology" and concludes that "sociological social psychology is [not] interdisciplinary", is either speaking a different language, or operating at such a dubiously high standard for "interdisciplinarity" that no attempt at rational persuasion can hope for success.
The rest of your points are almost uniformly either false or infelicitous. I can reply to them, if you like. But the conversation would be moot, and have nothing to do with this article, which still demands far more attention than it is getting. Lucidish { Ben S. Nelson } 19:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Let's not get personal. A lot of the above arguments have been given previously before the 3-ways split (PSP/SSP/this page) was made. Now that we have decided on this split discuss shortcoming of sociological social psych on that page rather than here (imho the only good thing of the split ridding this discussion of these arguments ;-) Arnoutf 20:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that we are very close to a consensus here. This page should be short, about as long as it is now. It should be very general and avoid all of the specific content that can be handled best on the individual psychology and sociology pages. I spoke in favor of putting one of the diagrams (above) in the main article earlier. Is there any agreement to that? I really cannot emphasize enough that trying to address even one of the specific issues here (e.g. communication), in any kind of detail, would be plagued by difficulties. Jcbutler 23:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
No need to worry about detailed explanations, we can let the sub-wikis handle those. Lucidish { Ben S. Nelson } 01:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Wow. The move to make a pure disambig page is rash.
  • The comments on the talk section of the disambig page are staggeringly wrong, for reasons already posted here. Check Jstor, NOT Google (!), for even a modestly tenable survey of this-or-that body of literature.
  • Comments about sociologists not self-identifying as scientists is quite bold; a survey of "what my self-designated sociologist friends think, lol" is, for lack of a better word, crap.
  • Finally, the entire list of topics thing which I have been discussing for the past month ("this forgettable stub") -- to little to no sustainable, reasoned dissent -- have been abandoned on a whim.
I am trying very hard to be patient, but am finding more and more reasons not to be. Lucidish { Ben S. Nelson } 19:42, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Lucidish, we are all trying hard to be patient. I don't have access to Jstor, but I'm quite willing to defend the notion that "social cognition" is primarily psychological, not sociological. Not only is the unit of analysis inside the individual, it's a direct offshoot of cognitive psychology. Here are some interesting results from google scholar, by the way:

social cognition psychology 489,000 hits
social cognition sociology 40,300 hits

I don't know about the science issue. I do know people who recoil at that label, and I was under the impression that Gergen's view of social psychology as history (not science) was somewhat popular in sociological social psychology. I could be wrong.

I didn't set up the disambiguation page, but I did make that first set of edits. If you don't like "social fabric", by all means, let's get rid of it. But we should try to avoid phrases like "staggeringly wrong" and "crap." Those labels have a tendency to come back and bite the user, you know.

As for the list of topics above, I think there has been plenty of "reasoned dissent" about having them here. Most of us think this page should be short and sweet, sans lists. Jcbutler 20:33, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I, for one, like the new disambiguation page. It contains nearly all of the information listed on the current page, and is easier to understand. By the way, I do have access to JSTOR--and so what? JSTOR is not an article index like google scholar, it is an archive of selected journals; certainly not a complete record of research in these areas. -Nicktalk 21:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree with the new page as well. It short and clear; and does not give POV for or against either approach. Fine tuning specific terms can always be done. (JSTOR is indeed a selection of old issues - even worse there are several different JSTOR packages that contain different journals.) Arnoutf 21:23, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I apologize for the outburst, but it sometimes feels as though I am talking to a wall. (No doubt the feeling is mutual.)

  • I think the word "crap", though indelicate, is still a fitting way of describing use of anecdotal evidence in a serious conversation. Still, there are, no doubt, people who see sociology as social philosophy. But the questions are: are these marginal or mainstream sentiments in sociology? And do they apply to SSP? If Gergen's views are widely shared, then surely there must be evidence for its popularity somewhere.
  • Regarding use of Google's main site: there may have been a miscommunication there. I was replying to said only "Google" and not "Google Scholar", which are different. JStor, whatever its limitations, is far and ahead more reliable than simply typing something into Google and claiming it as evidence (which has been done before). Nevertheless, keep in mind that, in terms of raw publication, SSP is the minority field: though it has undergone development, it has not kept pace with the development of PSP. As it happens, Edward Jones has used that as an argument against SSP as Social Psychology. (For my part, I think his conclusions don't follow from the evidence.) But the fact of it should at least be taken into consideration when we're talking about which theme(s) play what role(s) in what tradition(s).
  • When the disagreement is grounded upon mere aesthetics, I have to wonder what the origin of the disagreement really is. Style can't possibly be legitimate grounds for obstinance over content. { Ben S. Nelson } Lucidish 05:38, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
It seems that we are now arguing about style. A huge improvement already! I think we all agree Google is not really a good site to look for scholarly refs. Google Scholar is. Other options are Scopus, Web of Science, Webspirs (and there are others). JSTOR was not meant to be a search enginge but rather an archive of scholarly articles; so I would recommend not to use it for search tasks; there are plenty of alternatives. Arnoutf 12:11, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the argument is over content, and the purpose of this page, not aesthetics or style. It sounds as if many of us like the new disambiguation page. I agree that it was handled rather abruptly, but we are told to "be bold" in our editing here. At least, I was told that!

Regarding social cognition. I'm not sure this is worth arguing about, but clearly, if both PSP and SSP cover it, then it is not a good example of something that distinguishes SSP. I am curious though, so for my own edification, maybe someone could give me a few sources showing how sociologists pioneered this work. Jcbutler 18:37, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: boldness. Fair enough, but whether or not this is to become a mere disambiguation page has been an ongoing issue here. If I persist on this matter, it shouldn't be surprising.
If the argument really is, at core, about keeping it short, then it really does just boil down to mere aesthetics, and disregarded on those grounds. I mean, what else does a discussion of article size come down to, besides style? Presumably, it would be an indication that the above content is unacceptable in some way. But what is the substantive, non-fixable objection on the basis of the above content?
Not at all sure why you're talking about what "distinguishes" SSP when the issue is the opposite: common ground. Also no idea why you're talking about sociologists "pioneering" the work; this presumes that they're not crossing over into PSP, which is wrong; see DeLamater, Howard. These names, and their fields of interest, have been discussed recently on this page. DeLamater is the co-author of the much-neglected Michener textbook on Social Psychology; Howard is a co-author of a paper which holds that social cognition is a pillar of contemporary SSP (I believe it was referenced). { Ben S. Nelson } Lucidish 01:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
The size (length) of an article directly affects the efficiency with which information is conveyed to readers. It is foolish to dismiss that as "style." In addition, we should all orient ourselves with this: Wikipedia:No original research. The first sentence of the policy: "Original research is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to material that has not been published by a reliable source. It includes unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories, or any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position..." seems to apply to some of the things discussed here. -Nicktalk 02:14, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
And the length of the article would only be negligably increased by the addition of the section, which is why the objection you just posed is not valid. Also, the NOR policy is not relevant here, since we're not talking about legislation upon the content of a rarified subject matter, we're talking about something quite banal: topical headings. { Ben S. Nelson } Lucidish 23:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Lucidish, we're talking about distinguishing PSP from SSP because the purpose of a disambiguation page is to disambiguate things, i.e. distinguish them from one another. Several people above have voiced their agreement with this, and that was what the new person was trying to do when the page was switched a couple of days ago. My substantive, nonfixable objection to most of the above content is that it a) lengthens a page that should be very brief, and b) obfuscates the issue, as sociologists and psychologists have very different approaches to broad topics like communication and social learning.

Consider the following, quoted from above: Communication delves into the learning and processing of verbal and non-verbal language. One core issue in the study of communication is social influence, an area of research which studies the methods people use to make others obey an authority or conform to group expectations.

It's an attempt to find common ground, but it is full of inaccuracies. Nonverbal language is a contradiction in terms, and "social influence" topics like conformity and obedience are quite different from nonverbal communication and persuasion research. Most psychological social psych textbooks would put them in different chapters, but here they are lumped together. The only way to "fix" this very muddy content is to remove most of it. That would leave a sentence about social psychologists studying communication, but this is still somewhat inaccurate because the majority of them don't.

Why are we trying to put a common stamp on such different entities? Generalizations are difficult enough without making them interdisciplinary generalizations. It's my opinion that these issues are best dealt with on the separate pages. To the extent that SSP is truly interdisciplinary, and it does seem to have borrowed from PSP (on social cognition and other topics), then this can be discussed best on the SSP page.

I vote to restore the disambiguation page. Lucidish, if you want to add a sentence or two about common ground, that would be great. But as I keep trying to say, to apparently little effect, let's keep it short and sweet. Jcbutler 03:11, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate the attempt, just now, to formulate opinions regarding content which would be relevant to the issue at hand. Nevertheless, there are troubles with everything you've said here.

  1. The fact that you are talking about the differences between them is not a case for the creation of a diambiguation page, which is exactly what's at issue.
  2. "Several people above have voiced their agreement with this". Yes -- and several have voiced their disagreement. Check the vote.
  3. Objection a: "lengthens a page that should be very brief". Lengthening from "very brief" to "brief" is pure style. Also confuses the reader by not pointing out the relation between the fields. Hence the dismissal.
  4. Objection b: "obfuscates the issue, as sociologists and psychologists have very different approaches to broad topics like communication and social learning". Is irrelevant, since both those issues are dealt with in the individual pages -- and, as if that weren't enough, could be dealt with even here.
  5. "Nonverbal language is a contradiction in terms" is false. See written language and body language.
  6. "Most psychological social psych textbooks would put them in different chapters, but here they are lumped together." This is a side-effect of trying to keep the article short. If you want, we might separate them.
  7. "That would leave a sentence about social psychologists studying communication, but this is still somewhat inaccurate because the majority of them don't." Irrelevant, even if true. Do "most" physicists study the motion of planetary bodies (for a living)? Maybe that subsection of astrophysicists do so in detail, but others find other interests.
  8. "It's my opinion that these issues are best dealt with on the separate pages." And I -- along with some others at last count -- see no reason why a small survey here is unwarranted.

If you have noticed little effect, it should at no point strike you as a surprise as to why this is, since I've tried very hard to be clear about my reasons. { Ben S. Nelson } Lucidish 23:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

From what has been said on here, I have restored the redirect to the new disambiguation page. Lucidish, when you reverted the page redirect, you mentioned that the disambiguation page was created unilaterally. Well, I see now that myself, jcbutler, arnoutf and chembrothers (original creator of the disambig page) all are in support of the disambiguation page. To revert it again would truly be a unilateral action. -Nicktalk 03:53, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
See above. { Ben S. Nelson } Lucidish 23:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Let me add my name to the list of those who support the disambiguation page. It is much clearer, with far greater "usability" than the previous version.
I don't have much to say on the points Lucidish is raising, as I have already covered them above. I think it's interesting that Lucidish would accuse others of "obstinance", make a comparison to "talking to a wall", and complain that he is "trying very hard to be patient". Anyone with an inclination to do so should read the discussion going back a year, on essentially the same issue. One comment in February put it this way: "The talk page reveals somewhat of an argument over the direction of this page, but it seems that trained social psychologists are being overruled by philosophy undergrads." At first I was very genteel, open, and accomodating, but gradually I realized that accuracy in the subject matter has to take precedence over compromise, and that time is better spent actually editing material than talking at length with someone who can't seem to cooperate. On the other hand, some of Lucidish's diagrams are quite nice; perhaps we should talk about where the accurate ones might go. -DoctorW 20:08, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I would similarly invite anyone to dispassionately review the record of the last year in order to arrive at the opposite of DoctorW's conclusions.
But I suspect the number who are interested in reading the transcript of arguments on Wikipedia is a number which hovers around zero. So I'll summarize the year of 2006 for those who care. DrW, as well as Nick, failed to seriously account in conversation for Finnish practices as pointed out by Michael; he responded melodramatically to a section I entitled "Next on the docket", evidently under the impression that any attempts to put effort into research, come up with a plan, etc., is offensive; pushed for the PSP-SSP split, to which I conceded, once enough argument and broader consensus made it manifest that it would be inappropriate for me to continue; and generally exploded at every opportunity once it became clear that his will was not being fulfilled. That brings us to now, where he has pushed for disambiguation by ignoring the vote. (Of course, in all this I omit the eminently ignorable comments from other users like Anonymous, whose comments have here-and-there delved into the comically absurd.)
God help us all if this is how the world really works. { Ben S. Nelson } Lucidish 00:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
My restoring of the disambiguation page was based on a vote about restoring the disambiguation page (which won 4-1). I'm able to look past your pomposity, lucidish, but only to the extent that it is based on a correct appraisal of the situation. -Nicktalk 01:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
No. Please read. { Ben S. Nelson } Lucidish 01:17, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

The irony of this is that I really like the idea of an interdisciplinary social psychology. In an ideal world, Lucidish would be exactly right. For my dissertation I actually suggested getting a sociologist to sit in on the committee. This was not greeted enthusiastically by the department. It's sad that contemporary disciplines have become so specialized, but I sometimes feel that talking to some of my colleagues in psychology is itself an interdisciplinary experience. Here's something I found on the matter, by the way, cut and pasted from Proquest:

Some Reflections on the Golden Age of Interdisciplinary Social Psychology
Sewell, William H. Annual Review of Sociology. Palo Alto: 1989.Vol.15 pg. 1
Abstract (Document Summary)
After WWII, there was a tremendous increase in interest in interdisciplinary social psychology that resulted in the establishment of interdisciplinary social psychology training and research programs in major universities. Several of these programs were successful for many years, but failed to survive and became integrated into the university structure. The reasons behind the downfall of interdisciplinary social psychology training are discussed.

Jcbutler 21:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the material, I'll try to check them out. Needless to say, though, I don't think that we need to live in an ideal world to point out common ground. We just need to point it out. { Ben S. Nelson } Lucidish 23:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the thing that frustrates some of us, Lucidish, is that you don't seem to take full account of what other people say. Perhaps part of that is misunderstanding what is being said (certainly the case sometimes). On the main point, however (initially raised before Jul 10, 2004), of their being two fields of social psychology, you sometimes give the impression of ignoring people's perspectives and dismissing even consensus views (in this case a consensus consisting largely of experts), preferring instead your own agenda.

Here's another irony: At Cornell I was president of the Leonardo da Vinci Society, the purpose of which was the promotion of interdisciplinary dialogue and cooperation across lines of specialization. My dissertation committee had members from other departments, and they asked for sociological perspectives to be included (which were). In my ideal world the two disciplines would at least be informed of each others' perspectives. So, is there significant interdisciplinary social psychology being done somewhere? If so, perhaps we should find a place for it somewhere on Wikipedia. Except for one diagram that I remember being inaccurate (and the "Sociology" diagram not including Psychology), I like a lot of Lucidish's diagrams. Furthermore, have we fully addressed the issue of whether at least some of his material accurately describes "common ground"? If there is "common ground", perhaps we should discuss where the appropriate place for it might be. -DoctorW 06:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

DrW., I have tried to read according to the main points, because clearly the conversation would be neverending if I had responded to every single caveat. Some of those main points I have deliberately ignored -- for instance, where the comments meander into discussions on me, my character, some motto on my user page, etc. -- because replying to them would simply decrease the relevance and coherance of the conversation at hand.
The only case I readily recall where I missed a main point out of carelessness was with Nick some months ago, where he objected that I had overlooked an analogy with respect to organic chemistry. (It turns out that he had in hindsight grossly inflated the importance of a comment which he had originally written in parentheses.) No doubt there have been other issues, but in most circumstances, that sort of thing can bear repetition. And, as you may have noticed, I have had to do my fair share of repetition throughout the entire exchange (the most recent case being with Nick a moment ago, reminding him of the vote from a few months ago). It is not my intent to embarress or act as a Frasier, but neither is it reasonable to ask me to bear the whole burden of shared infelicity.
I just want to remind you that much of the written material here has not been simple fabrication and wishful thinking on the part of some deranged lone wolf. The Michener textbook was my guide, and I went through it systematically. Perhaps you can then understand some of my exasperation when that entire article was deemed insalvagable. Of course, as far as I'm concerned, it's water under the bridge at this point, since I've conceded the split.
A month ago, I invited you to examine the topics listing. It provides some candidates for common ground. As far as I know, I have responded and fixed any explicit objections that have been posed against the material there.
If we're not to speak of what the two subdisciplines have in common on a page about social psychology, then where could we possibly speak of it at all? A "philosophy of social psychology" page, maybe -- assuming such a thing exists. I think, though, that would be a bit much. And anyway, the expressed opinions on making this the disambiguation page are not at all decisive. { Ben S. Nelson } Lucidish 18:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Lucidish, it looks like you have been going back and editing your previous posts. This makes it difficult to keep track of the conversation, so perhaps we could simply add new posts when we have something new to say? Anyway, among other things, you disputed my statement that nonverbal language is a contradiction in terms. My reply is that written language is indeed "verbal" (it uses words) and body language is a piece of pop terminology that doesn't have a lot of scientific meaning. True language has syntax and semantics. If you and I were to exchange gestures right now, the semantics or meaning would be obvious, but I think we can agree that there would be an absense of syntax. Other forms of nonverbal communication, such as posture and facial expressions are even less like language because rather than discrete symbols, the behavior is typically ambiguous and lacking in semantics. Eye contact, for example, can be a signal of intimacy but it can also be a threat.

A linguist would be able to provide additional clarification, and this is the very point that I suggested earlier about the advantage of disciplinary perspectives. It's usually best to let the linguists talk about language, the sociologists talk about sociology, and the psychologists talk about psychology. Note that all three have the "common ground of communication," as do the faculty in Speech, English Literature, and Radio and TV. The more I think about this, the more I'm beginning to see that any attempt to find "common ground" in a Wikipedia entry on social psychology is an exercise in futility.

The topic of agendas has come up here. My agenda is to represent social psychology as accurately as possible, mainly for the benefit of university students who consult this website as a quick and convenient reference. Lucidish, what is your agenda? I've looked over the history of this page and noticed that you have systematically removed statements demarcating PSP and SSP, in pursuit of some kind of ideal that exists only in your mind. Let's remember Nick's point about no original research. If you are trying to make some kind of synthesis here, maybe you should consider publishing it somewhere other than Wikipedia.

Please forgive me for not responding to your other seven points, but I have some other tasks to do this morning. I'm also beginning to appreciate DrW's position that our time could be better spent editing material than arguing about it. Jcbutler 15:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

JC, I usually only edit in a link, or try to clarify some point which didn't come out especially intelligible on the first pass. (For instance, I added in a link to the September vote in my reply to you above.) I'll try to restrain myself if this is disconcerting.
Taken literally, the claim that 'nonverbal language is contradictory' is disproven by the cases of written language and sign language, both of which possess syntactic properties and lexical properties.
If "body language" were agreed to have no scientific meaning, then we would not expect there to be any literature upon it. Of course, that's not true, as attested by a search through Google Scholar of '"body language" psychology'.
Still, we might protest further, and wonder why it is that we should presume that syntax really is the essential feature of language. Granted, the "syntax" view dominates linguistics, mostly because of excellent developments in our understanding of the language module. But, nevertheless, it seems to me that it is a view that has no merit. Language is the recognition of signs as they are associated with patterns and attitudes. The utterance, "CAR!" in the middle of a hockey game, has no syntactic structure -- it is purely semantical; yet it is also pretty obviously linguistic. Also, the syntax-free learned associations of a trained chimpanzee are linguistic, insofar as they are the use of symbols that mirror some intentions on behalf of the chimp.
Saying "oh, let's leave to it the linguists to figure out" is not especially wise, since disciplines are as apt to engineer idiosyncratic and incontestible conventions of opinion as they are of actually providing people with discipline. At worst, this leads to the creation of pseudo-disciplines, which have no content or merit as a whole. At best, it stifles intellectual inquiry. No, it is better to say, "Let's let the informed people figure it out", and then try ourselves to stay informed.
I don't know what you mean about systematic elimination of PSP/SSP. The original version had a mention of it in the first place, citing House. My agenda is to point out the verifiable truth about the matter up. Nothing "ideal" just in "my mind", since if you look at the section above, you'll observe the sheer banality of the topics list. There is nothing "original" that would make this research OR.
And since the subdisciplines discuss similar things in general, there is absolutely no harm in mentioning that; and they're related in such a fixed way, that they escape the analogy you make with "English, media" etc. That's not even mentioning the Communications Studies departments that deal exactly and precisely with the topics you mentioned just now. { Ben S. Nelson } Lucidish 19:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

You are right, Lucidish. You aren't doing that much actual editing, just inserting comments "up in the list" rather than at the end of the line, as I am doing right now. Of course, this makes sense since you are probably just trying to reply to previous posts. My fault for missing it.

As for language, I'm not going to argue the point, because I feel like I am heading toward absurdity. I believe you are now arguing for the sake of argument. Let me just say that the typical usage in psychological social psychology is "nonverbal communication," not nonverbal language. Oddly enough, Google Scholar actually dredges up 506 hits for '"nonverbal language" psychology'. ;)

One last point. I am generally anti-authoritarian and in favor of people reading and thinking for themselves. Nevertheless, if you ever face a serious injury or health problem, I do hope you consult a physician, rather letting "informed people" diagnose you. Experts are not always right, but you typically increase your odds. Jcbutler 21:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Quite serious. First, I pointed out how and why you are wrong on merely conceptual grounds. Sign language is not a verbal language. Therefore, there is such a thing as non-verbal language. I said nothing about whether or not that is the most comfortable name for it. Second, I expressed my beliefs with respect to the concept of "language", which would moot your "syntactic" perspective. The greater body of opinions within psychology have evidently varied, when it comes to the question of "What is language?" on this point -- something that Passer et al. are at pains to communicate in their treatment of the issue. (I can cite the page, if you're interested; the text itself has already been referenced above.)
Your analogy is interesting. Here's another analogy: a man walks into a doctor's office, and complains of an earache. The only doctor in town, luckily, is an ear doctor; though this doctor only knows about the ear itself, its anatomy, and nothing about any other part of the body. The ear doctor examines the man and says, "I just don't see anything wrong with your ears, so you must just be complaining because you like to complain." The patient dies a week later. It turns out that he had a neurological disorder which any general practitioner could have identified, and then sent the man to a specialist who could have it cured with medication. If the doctor had known even just a little bit about this kind of neurosis, he might've been able to transfer the patient to someone else.
My proposition about "informed persons" is NOT meant to be an attack on expertise. I was careful in my wording. I support genuine disciplines made up of disinterested and informed persons. But I don't support the tunnel-vision, groupthink, and contempt for reasoning which you can find in most closed communities. Nor do I understand how such persons could self-identify as "intellectuals" without being laughed out of the room. { Ben S. Nelson } Lucidish 02:06, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Like a moth to a flame, or a spectator watching a terrible accident, I find myself posting again. Thank you Lucidish, for pointing out how and why I am merely wrong on conceptual grounds. Apparently you forgot to point out who, what, where, and when I am wrong, but I have faith that you will get to it. Now that you have clarified that nonverbal expression is just as much a language as Esperanto, or ASL, I'm sure you'll have no trouble translating this discussion into a series of gestures and twitches. I can't wait to see the video. Meanwhile, I will start looking at how to integrate sign language into my syllabus, as it is clearly an important part of social psychology that I have somehow missed.

Anyway, since your beliefs have clearly mooted my syntactic perspective, I think I shall withdraw from this debate. I'll just turn my tunnel vision back toward my closed community and go back to my groupthink friends. I don't know how you guessed this, but just the other day over coffee, we were discussing our contempt for reason.

I only hope we can still be friends and get together for smoothies and barbeque at each other's houses. Jcbutler 04:44, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

As I explained just now on your talk page, Merriam-Webster will clear up all confusion about the sense of "verbal" I was using, if that's really what's at issue.
I don't understand why you've interpreted a blanket statement, formed as a prose rebuttal to the gist of your "doctor" analogy, as a personal attack upon you. I didn't say anything about you, nor did I mean to. I'm sorry if you were offended. { Ben S. Nelson } Lucidish 16:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Apology accepted. And I'm sorry if my response was a little over the top... I'm sure that despite our disagreements, we both have in common the fundamental goal of improving Wikipedia. Jcbutler 21:26, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

No prob, and for sure. Happy holidays for now! { Ben S. Nelson } Lucidish 00:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Consensus on this page being a brief disambiguation page

A few quotations above that I could find relatively easily:

  • "My restoring of the disambiguation page was based on a vote about restoring the disambiguation page (which won 4-1). I'm able to look past your pomposity, lucidish, but only to the extent that it is based on a correct appraisal of the situation." -Nicktalk
  • "I vote to restore the disambiguation page. Lucidish, if you want to add a sentence or two about common ground, that would be great. But as I keep trying to say, to apparently little effect, let's keep it short and sweet." -Jcbutler
  • "I agree with the new page as well. It short and clear; and does not give POV for or against either approach. Fine tuning specific terms can always be done." -Arnoutf
  • "Let me add my name to the list of those who support the disambiguation page. It is much clearer, with far greater "usability" than the previous version." -DoctorW

There is a clear consensus to make this a short disambiguation page. I feel as though we have talked the issue to death and Lucidish simply doesn't want to accept it. Except for Lucidish, there appears to be universal agreement that the long passage he keeps putting back here should not go on this page. Are we still in the mood to try again to generously help him with this issue, or should we pursue another course of action? -DoctorW 03:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Read -> comprehend -> post. This is the third time I've linked, now. Votes counter: myself, Santa Sangre, ur_land. { Ben S. Nelson } Lucidish 01:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
In that case, let's not forget the two additional people who felt the page should be split, allowing access to the articles from a disambiguation page (solitary_refinement and irongargoyle). So, now, it seems to be six to three in favor of the simple disambiguation page. -Nicktalk 01:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Not quite. Read again. Albany and solitary supported unequivocal splits. Irongargoyle advocated a nuanced position, which was against a disambiguation page, but pro-redirect to SSP and pro-split (but then again, everyone by that point was "pro-split" to some degree, which a careful reader should not overlook). Also, Arnoult has just lately changed his mind -- his previous vote was very much more in the overhaul camp. So, if we take the issue to be purely on the issue of "disambiguation or not", then the tally is at six to four. That is a majority in your camp, but not a consensus by any meaning of the term. { Ben S. Nelson } Lucidish 02:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm still a bit new to the policy and procedure here, but I was under the impression that we were supposed to use consensus or general agreement, not vote counting. Also, I'm rather hesitant about relying on votes from people who are no longer taking part in the discussion, and whose decision was made without knowledge of recent developments. Given that consensus is preferable, I'd prefer to NOT put anything on the "split" page that is not consensual and widely agreeable to both psychologists and sociologists. Until that point is reached, it's probably best to leave it as is. Lucidish, you admit that you are taking an action that is in a minority position. That is certainly not consensus. Jcbutler 05:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree we have to be carefull, the consensus is collected from all over the talk page, so without context some statement may be overinterpreted this way. This said, I generally like the page as it is now. I would not object to the addition of the main academic societies for both streams and some of the key journals (eg JPSP) as this may help people decide which of the two versions is most relevant for their purpose. This should be balanced and brief however so not list 15 PSP journals against 1 SSP journal. I would also not object to a small (few lines) section listing research areas where both are applied (I think I aleady suggested Communication Science and Criminology before) as IMHO these are the only fields (if any) where multidisciplinarity is likely. Arnoutf 08:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Arnoutf may be on to something here. I think the page should have a brief, general definition of social psychology at the very beginning, followed by the existing disambiguity section, followed perhaps by a short paragraph containing some additional discussion and mention of key journals and organizations. Earlier, I said I liked the diagram, and I still like the idea of it, but the existing version seems to have some issues, particularly the chopping off of letters which I hadn't actually noticed before. The bulleted list of content areas is overly detailed for a general page of this nature. Jcbutler 14:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I do admit that the position is now in the minority, whereas before it was very much on equal ground.
But I'd also be willing to concede to something like what Arnoutf has lately suggested. I don't much care about the diagram. If it helps, great; if not, fine. I ultimately just want people to know what the two disciplines have in common, it doesn't matter to me how much detail is involved. { Ben S. Nelson } Lucidish 20:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Social_psychology/archive3&oldid=1136232925"