Talk:Insight

message: Lmcglown 21:03, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment made in 2006

message: I have talked my cousin in Los Angeles, California into signing up for insight service and I need to know if insight is local or nationwide.--74.128.205.208 (talk) 01:25, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Insight Location 

message: The "In Marketing" section has multiple problems: 
# "Conroy (2008)" is not a complete or properly styled citation, or no such reference is given. 
# Grammar problems suggest the whole section is original research or a paraphrase. 
# Etymology: Section fails to explain how this usage of "insight" derives from or is an example of any of the given meanings (see bullet list at top of article). 
# Section reads like hype, not science. Not suitable for Wikipedia? 
-- 172.190.224.153 (talk) 16:35, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  In Marketing 

message: This entire article is lacking references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.229.54.243 (talk) 16:29, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lacking References 

message: Hello, all! I plan on editing the psychology section of this article for my senior capstone class at Davidson College. Thanks! 152.42.223.0 (talk) 20:17, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: That's great!  Just remember to use and incorporate sources, as you would any scholarly paper.  And if you need help getting the coding right, leave a message here.Legitimus (talk) 01:57, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Editing

message: As a senior capstone project, students are working improve the content of selected articles.  More details are on the course page. Student first edits are due April 20, then we'll spend a week reviewing.  Final project is due by May 14, 2012.  Thanks for your encouragement and support. Greta Munger (talk) 15:13, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Student edit timeline, Spring 2012 

message: Here are some recommendations:
-Minor wording issues were present throughout, so be wary of those (i.e. "empty to the box of tacks" in the Methods, "for a short break" to "with a short break" in Incubation,  changing numbers larger than nine to numerical form). 
-Breaking the methods section into subheadings. I think that headers along the lines of Novelty, Spatial Ability, and Verbal Ability would help readers quickly differentiate between the methods at a glance. Or, you could use headings with the specific names of tests. 
-Under the "Insight versus Non-Insight Problems" section, the second paragraph about the fMRI and EEG scans seems like it would fit better in the "In the Brain" section. 
-"In Nature" may be better termed "In Naturalistic Settings" or something similar. The section is clear in its content, but if I was reading it looking for naturalistic field study, I would not be immediately attracted to that heading. 
-In terms of importance, I'm not sure if "In Animals" should be placed at the top of the specific results. 
-I know that you focused on the Psychology section, but the introduction could use some help. I know that you would do a great job with that.
Overall, I think you did a great job of splitting up the Philosophy and the Psychology. The categories that you created within the Psychology section show a breadth of information on various aspects of insight. The behavioral, emotional, and physiological explanations were well worded with good examples. I definitely agree with your plan to add some pictures- I think that would add to the article in a nice way. So far, great work- this is a vast improvement from the original!
Anna B. Smith (talk) 15:29, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Senior Capstone Peer Edit

message: Like Anna, I thought that this page was very well done and presented the methods and results in a very readable manner. I only have a few a suggestions as a few of mine overlapped with prior ones. 
-I would say in general try to just double check for correct word choice and passive voice for describing some of the results. I would also be careful using "appears" to much in your writing. For example, the phrase "Insight probably involves both process, but it appears it encompasses more of the second" might be a little clearer if reworded something like "insight could involve both processes, but based on the results, it seems more likely that it encompasses more of the second". 
-Like Anna, I would also break up the methods into three separate sections(making it easier to read and subsequently understand the results).
-It would also be nice to have a little introduction to the theories even if it is only a few sentences long (right now it just reads theories). I would also make some mention of the theories at the end of the introduction in order to familiarize the reader with some possible processes underlying insight that they could think about while reading the methods and results.  
-I did like the breakdown of the results into different categories as it made it easy to follow where you were going. The sources you used also all looked credible and properly formatted in the bibliography, both of which are good things. Some pictures of the experiments would be a really nice touch too, and as a whole I think you are off to a good start!
jataylor90 (talk) 16:34, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Senior Capstone Peer Edit 2

message: Can somebody fix that, please? It's rather jarring compared to the rest of the page. 129.7.50.250 (talk) 17:30, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Business section is written in buzzword-heavy Business-talk 

message: In the psychology section, there is a sentence that talks about "sting problem" and "tree classes".
Might these be a typo?
Possibly, "interesting problem" and "three classes" instead?
I don't have access to the referenced book, "Psychology: Themes and Variations".
Maybe one of my fellow editors might look it up.
--209.89.194.109 (talk) 12:58, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for telling us 209.89.194.109! I found the psychology book on  google books. However, the text in our article was so badly written: "a kind of sting problem that solves problems with a burst of insight" that I removed most of it, only keeping the definition of insight. Lova Falk talk 08:37, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sting problem, tree classes 

message: The Psychiatry section is very one-sided and misleading. I've tried editing, tried providing references, but my changes keep getting reverted by others , so I'll just point out a few of the worst problems here:
"Psychiatric insight is typically measured with the Beck cognitive insight scale." -- Actually, in real-world conditions of psychiatric hospitals, insight is basically never "measured." Neither this scale nor any other is used. That should be clarified. Further, the Beck scale is not even the most common in research contexts, and insight is relatively rarely actually assessed in research contexts, either. As they say, it's hard to prove an absence, so I'd have to put it back to you, then: What is the evidence for this statement? The reference is simply to an article about a Taiwanese version of the scale.
"This form of insight has multiple dimensions, such as recognizing the need for treatment, and recognizing consequences of one's behavior as stemming from an illness... The most extreme form is anosognosia, the total absence of insight into one's own mental illness." -- This whole paragraph basically restates these sentences over and over. They are correctly representative of a fairly common psychiatric opinion, but they completely fail to clarify that these concepts are controversial and a matter of interpretation. And it's not as if I'm making that up or there's a lack of references for it -- I've tried to provide some, but just go read the Wikipedia pages on "mental illness" to see some of the controversies and problems that this section here on this page is pretending don't exist! As that page asks, what is "mental illness", anyway? And if our concepts of mental illness are a product of cultural biases or morality and not scientifically objective, then how does that affect our perception of the "degree of insight" being demonstrated by a person who a psychiatrist thinks is mentally ill but who may think of himself as an Energy Healer? 
The biggest problem with the concept of insight in psychiatry is that it usually boils down to "does the patient agree with the psychiatrist that he/she has a mental illness and needs treatment?" The SUM-D (which the Beck scale was originally calibrated with) even specifically adds a third element, that the patient must agree that the treatment the psychiatrist is giving them is helping. This section here states some of this, but utterly without acknowledging the unscientific and even dangerous nature of this whole notion. What I'm getting at here is, the politics of this issue has been left out entirely -- a politics that the wiki page on mental illness acknowledges some of, e.g. in the Law and Politics section. The concept of "insight" in psychiatry is central to the political justification for detaining people against their will and forcibly treating them. As the mental illness wiki page points out, only when some cases hit the Supreme Court did some of this muddy concept of "insight" get untangled into issues of informed consent as distinct from agreeing with psychiatrists or agreeing with concepts of mental illness and the alleged values of treatment. To discuss insight in psychiatry in this section here on this page as if the premise has been developed as a purely "medical-scientific" notion devoid of political and legal weight and controversy is completely misleading to the general public. 
Anyway, I'm tired of my changes getting reverted, so I'll just leave this and hope someone else gets motivated to make this section of the Insight page a little more reasonable and less obviously reflective of only the opinions of psychiatric professionals who believe in forced treatment.  --Gabble25 (talk) 04:11, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Psychiatry section extremely biased and misleading