Talk:Association for Psychological Science

message: Adding the complete history of the student executive board committee is a bit ridiculous.  If it belongs on WP, it should be its own page instead of on the society's main page.  I have removed it.
Nestify (talk) 13:31, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

message: The most recent version contained a lot of promotional language and links to the APS site. I toned it down and changed to WP links where appropriate.  justinfr (talk/contribs) 13:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV

message: It might be interesting to have a section on the history of APS and it's split from APA. Robertekraut (talk) 21:39, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This link might help. http://www.psych.umn.edu/courses/fall07/brunnquelld/psy8542/Session%2012/Dawes%20-Letter%20to%20APA%20Council%20of%20Representatives.pdf APS Observer, vol. 2, no. 1, January 1989, Letter of Robyn M. Dawes to APA Council of Representatives. --Nbauman (talk) 17:13, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's another one. http://www.psychologicalscience.org/media/releases/pr030912.cfm Report finds 'no convincing evidence' that psychological debriefing reduces incidence of PTSD --Nbauman (talk) 17:16, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of APS 

message: I see Histpsy, who joined Wikipedia and only made one edit, took out the section I wrote http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Association_for_Psychological_Science&diff=468298248&oldid=467781289 The edit removes the following section: 
:The APS was founded by members who broke with the American Psychological Association because they felt that the APA was becoming "more and more a professional union and less and less a scientific society." Immediately after the APS was founded, the APA Board of Directors made a motion (which failed) to kick members of the APS off the APA Council.Charter Member Memories, APS Observer, Vol. 21, No. 2, February 2008. Founding member Robyn M. Dawes complains in his book House of Cards that psychologists are justifying their conclusions with "trained clinical intuition" rather than with "validated techniques and principles" based on good scientific studies. Even worse, psychologists are using techniques and principles that are known to be untrue and invalid, and don't admit the limitations of their knowledge, even in commitment hearings, custody cases, or suspected child abuse.[House of cards: psychology and psychotherapy built on myth By Robyn M. Dawes http://books.google.com/books?id=J6iq_khf5HkC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false]
I think this edit misses the point.
I'm a science writer, not a psychologist, but I went to an early meeing of the APS in New York when some of the organizers invited me, and their president (I think it was) gave a talk that I thought was very insightful. 
He made the important point that the APS members believed in evidence-based psychology, and the APA did not. The APA was embracing members who practiced therapies that had no scientific basis and often had been demonstrated to be not only ineffective but harmful. That's the point I tried to make from those WP:RS. 
This edit does not clearly state those issues. It doesn't clearly state the significant differences between the APS and APA. As the entry now stands, it's addressing these issues in allusive and elliptical ways. Wikipedia is written for the ordinary non-specialist reader -- even a high school student [Know your audience] If the reader weren't already familiar with the politics of psychology, he or she wouldn't know what you're talking about in many sections. I'd also refer you to WP:MISSION. What does "the improvement of human welfare" mean? Does that mean that the APA's mission doesn't include the improvement of human welfare? 
The APS has the mission of promoting science-based psychology, which is increasingly important now that almost any quack can get paid for treatments by a health insurance company. This is turning into academicese which doesn't even say that. You're throwing out your important contributions and replacing them with gobbledgook that your readers don't understand. --Nbauman (talk) 18:29, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's the problem with this section?  

message: From the current Wikipedia article: APS was founded in 1988 by a group of scientifically-oriented researchers and practitioners who are interested in advancing scientific psychology and its representation at the national level. This group of psychologists felt that the American Psychological Association (APA), psychology’s parent organization, could no longer adequately meet their needs, generally deriving from the fact that the APA focused solely on the more scientific research oriented psychologist, while ignoring the practitioner/clinician half of psychology, and had effectively “become a guild”.
This is backwards. The complaint of the APS was that the APA had become too focused on the practitioner/clinician side of psychology and had neglected the scientific research oriented psychologist.
71.93.120.216 (talk) 18:27, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Backwards information on split from APA 

message: The lead says the APS used to be the American Psychological Association. The History section says that both organizations coexisted and were in substantive dispute. The latter implies a take-over, such as a merger. But today both organizations exist and have different chief executives and websites. Is the lead exaggerating something, did the organizations merge and then separate, did many members shift what they were members of, or is there another explanation? I'm not familiar enough with either to edit this article myself. Nick Levinson (talk) 01:08, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, that was a beaut of a mistake. I struck it out. Sorry about that. No edit is needed for the article, to my knowledge. Nick Levinson (talk) 05:13, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  
relationship today with APA
 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Association for Psychological Science. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111022040236/http://nimh.nih.gov/about/director/publications/behavioral-research-at-nimh.shtml to http://www.nimh.nih.gov/about/director/publications/behavioral-research-at-nimh.shtml
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120404132706/http://obssr.od.nih.gov/about_obssr/strategic_planning/original_strategic_plan_1997/secthre.aspx to http://obssr.od.nih.gov/about_obssr/strategic_planning/original_strategic_plan_1997/secthre.aspx
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:16, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This is the depiction of the Simonton source in the article:
The two groups had contrasting beliefs about such divisive issues as scientific versus human values, determinism versus indeterminism, objectivism versus intuitionism, laboratory investigations versus field studies, nomothetic versus idiographic explanations, and elementism versus holism
The article uses a source that contains information irrelevant to the APS and its history. The source investigates the impact of prominent psychologists such as Freud and Skinner by examining the number of citations they have received because of their work. The source makes no reference to the American Psychological Association or the Association for Psychological Science. Therefore, the source provides no evidence that the members of APA and APS had contrasting beliefs about human values. This should probably be deleted, but I wanted to get a second opinion on this.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.184.80.177 (talk) 08:47, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Simonton Source