Talk:Gordon Allport

message: This stub is in need of a lot of work. I have edited what the original author created, and indicated a few additional sections that are needed, and which I will try to fill in as I have time. Anyone else who can work on this would be appreciated.
Gogh 03:18, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: there is some room left for critical reception of Allports ideas, eg. "Genotypes and phenotypes": "internal and external forces that influence an individual’s behavior" sounds misleading as internal forces (way of thinking, personality, etc) are shaped by external forces as well during lifetime and especially during the first few years of developement. so calling these a "genotype" is suggesting that they are mostly genetically determined, which seems to be in contradiction to what is accepted in psychology today. i am not sure if it is just unlucky choice of words or if Allport really used to belive that internal forces of behaviour are genetical, but this needs to be discussed in the article.(80.98.212.141 (talk) 20:57, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Genotypes and phenotypes 

message: besides, allport is well known (at least as far as i know in europe) among non-psychologists for his work on prejudice. i suggest this book deserves more mention in the article. (and it needs perhaps also a critical approach.)(80.98.212.141 (talk) 14:32, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Fifty Years after Allport
John F. Dovidio, Peter Glick,
and Laurie A. Rudman - (http://samples.sainsburysebooks.co.uk/9781405151924_sample_382776.pdf  )
(80.98.212.141 (talk) 20:56, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: the nature of prejudice

message: the use of "instinct" is problematic in any text dealing with humans. the accepted definition (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instinct#In_psychology) of "instinct" implies that there is no such thing as an instinct in humans. or at most there is something in the blurred borderline between reflexes and instinct, but in no way a "typical" instinct. the word has mostly fallen out of use in psychology.
so when used in a contemporary encyclopedia it needs a critical reference explaining that its historical use was poorly defined or metaphorical or proved wrong since then.
(80.98.212.141 (talk) 14:43, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  instinct 

message: The phrase "important and interesting topics" does not sound like a neutral point of view. Vorbee (talk) 18:17, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Important and interesting topics

message: Allport is known as a trait theorist is what is what it says under the section sub-titled "Allport's trait theory". This could go earlier in the earlier article, given how central to personality psychology is Allport's trait theory. Vorbee (talk) 17:30, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to ask if the "trait theory" can be replaced by "personality theory" for consistency or they are entirely different. Darwin Naz (talk) 04:49, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Allport's trait theory

message: Gordon W. Allport made a major contribution to the Psychology of religion in distinguishing extrinsic religion (use of religion as a means to an end, e.g. to gain social status) from intrinsic religion (a genuine, heart-felt piety). This does not appear to be mentioned in the article, but is a major contribution of Allport to psychology, so it should be. Vorbee (talk) 17:33, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Intrinsic and extrinsic religion

message: The second paragraph seems to contain a contradiction. It begins with a sentence saying Allport is less cited than other well-known psychologists, and ends with a sentence referring to a survey that found Allport was the eleventh most cited psychologist of the twentieth century. Vorbee (talk) 19:48, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Is second paragraph self-contradictory?