Talk:Type A and Type B personality theory

message: LOWERCASE LETTERS (talk) 21:14, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

message: I believe this article is rather unflattering to its subject as it often reads as though Type A Personality is a disorder, such as in the phrase "they may exhibit some or all of these characteristics, it does not mean that people with the type A personality are incapable of showing love, affection or other types of non-pessimistic behavior." In order to improve this article in this respect, I think more references are the best route rather than simply rewording what is already here. Before I make any drastic changes, though, I wanted to get the thoughts of others who have invested in this page. How can we best improve the article? VigilancePrime (talk) 05:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, yes this article is bizarre!  Type A Personality is not a "syndrome".... it's one, of two types!  Please fix.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.101.194.73 (talk) 10:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, I think this article pretty well sums up the Type A personality (I don't think its a personality disorder, just a personality type.) They've always annoyed me. After reading Type A behavior and your heart some years ago I warned my boss he needed to back off a few notches because he was an obvious candidate for a heart attack. Of course, after his heart attack he had to stop working, whereas I still could, but just don't feel like it. How much money do you really need anyway? Call me Mr. Type "B". Cheers, RockyMtnGuy (talk) 18:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't really believe you can categorise the human brain into two types... the thing is, Type A and Type B could both describe the same person in differing circumstances or situations. Personally, I know that I can exhibit Type B characteristics when it's about one thing, but Type A about another. In the same way, I exhibit introverted behaviour when I am feeling apathetic towards a situation but extroverted when I care. But if you really think you can describe, group and predict the behaviours of a hundred billion neurons then if anything, you're just being a Type A. Kookas (talk) 20:21, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

text: What you guys have hit upon is the crux of the issue with this typology...it is too broad and is made up of factors that do not correlate (as this article even states) - so 1 type A may be a CEO but another could be an Axe murderer bc there is no "real" type A... there are too many dimensions/factors of "type a" -- agression, impatience, hyper-vigilance (etc etc) that do not correlate with each other universally.  In some people they do - but not everyone. So, it's cute for pop psychology, but as this own article says, psychometric analysis reveals that there are no type a  and type B personalities.  Just like, there are no "left brain and right brain" people.  Yes, there are quant people and creatives...but it's not quite that simple.  Humans are insanely complex and we love to put things in buckets and make them black & white (or A and B)  -- I do agree this needs to be rewritten so it is less of a syndrome, but it's so dated im not quite sure how to do it.  Nobody has done research on this in decades...perhaps this should be written from a more historical perspective?  For example, we'd never write an article about lobotomy (i cant spell that) from such a perspective...though it is still used in rare migraine cases...still, it is dated and the article probably reflects that.  The same needs to be done here. Angelatomato (talk) 07:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously, a 'type B' person wrote this article.  Type A is also considered outgoing and personable.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.236.175.77 (talk) 01:19, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Actually, the types A and B were made to help describe people who frequently showed such traits. Type A points out the noticable parts; one side of the yin-yang (the 'bad' parts) and Type B is (quite literally defined as) the absence of Type A. Therefore also taking to light the other side of the yin-yang, or the 'good' traits. It is necessary for each type to seem to have some bias. ALSO- it is EXTREMELY rare to find a person who is entirely one type. People are usually part of both, if or if not leaning more to one side. JustTori (talk) 02:03, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Well, keep in mind that the theory was originally developed as a way of predicting coronary heart disease. In that sense, Type A is the psychological equivalent of high cholesterol. Would you say that Hypercholesterolemia suffers from POV as well? If you are aware of research showing that it is unhealthy to be Type B, then include it in the article by all means. But also keep in mind that the theory is pretty much obsolete in health psychology anyway, so we're talking about the quality of the paint on a condemned building. Maybe that is what needs to be made more explicit in the article. --Jcbutler (talk) 03:37, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: What's missing from this article is where these definitions come from.
--194.144.19.47 (talk) 02:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't there any criticism that this is all Forer effect bullshit wrapped up in vague descriptions and false dichotomies?--Loodog (talk) 00:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

text: There is no mention (that I'm aware of) on Wikipedia about "Type C." I have, however, read about Type C personality on this (http://www.buzzle.com/articles/personality-types-a-b-c.html) website. The website also mentions a "Type D," which is somewhat different than the Wikipedia article on the same subject. Tha Pyngwyn (talk) 16:29, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism 

message: In this page, Mike Jordan is mentioned as the collaborator in Meyer Friedman's early work, but even Friedman's page here has no mention of him, naming instead Ray Rosenman, whose name I remember being prominently mentioned in articles from the 1970s. Lacking outside sources, I don't propose to modify anything-yet-but I'm confused. Hushpuckena (talk) 02:43, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origins 

message: This article is the loosest piece of crap I have seen at wiki for a long time. There are dozens of statements that are left unsubstantiated (such as relation between personality and various deceases). This article should to my mind be trimmed by about 50% and seriously rephrased.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.213.200.171 (talk) 08:02, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: We're all volunteers here. Please feel free to improve this article. Lova Falk talk 09:05, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment

message: In the years since the neutrality and lack of citations of this article has been noted, much has been done to to this article. 
Concerning neutrality: I hope that the current article clearly explains that this is a theory & only a theory, which was proposed several years ago, which has been partially discredited & which some dismiss altogether. As such, as it is currently written, I hope few will take it as a personal insult in their own personality traits. 
Concerning citations: While almost any article could profit from additional citations, this article has far more citations than when this article was first flagged in 2010. If anyone would like to see specific citations added, I would hope they would mark what specifics they would like to see. 
Being the concerns on the talk page have generally been addressed & barring any mention of more specific notes concerning any citations still missing, the current flags at the top of this article seem outdated & therefore I will remove them. If anyone feels this to be premature, feel free to add them back in, but please also be specific as to your concerns. Gregogil (talk) 07:48, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Former Issues 

message: This article isn't particularly pleasing to the eye, but I think the addition of subheading within explaining Type A and B personalities will remove the deterrence of a wall of text that some may get when opening a wiki page. This also can be combated through the usage of tables or graphs using statistics of the claims that are used. Regarding the claims made in this section, some are needing citation and is does not seem reliable to use.
Structure wise, I believe that the some of the traits describing each personality type should be mentioned early in the section with links to their respective wiki page if it were not to be expanded upon here.LOWERCASE LETTERS (talk) 21:14, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Type A Section suggestions

message: I think the Type B section is severely under-developed compared to the Type A section. Everything included there could essentially be shortened to "Type B is just the opposite of Type A." Also, there are several unsubstantiated clams that need a source. I plan on rewriting the majority of this section in the coming weeks after doing some more research and finding sources that more accurately define how Type B personality individuals act. If anyone has any suggestions on some good sources to check, that'd make my job a lot easier. Thanks. HendoJ (talk) 21:25, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Type B Personality Section