Talk:Psychology/Archive 1

message: I don't think this really qualifies as a stub anymore... but I'm scared of messing it up if I try to change it back to normal article. Can anyone alter it? Sparkleyone 08:35, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Still a stub? 

message: Why was my edit taken out?Barbara Shack 15:23, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Top

message: much great work has been done on this article. however, it is still written in language that psychologists are comfortable with. please begin editing this article with readers in mind who don't know the lingo. 
thanks, Kingturtle 04:38, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  still needs work 

message: Added small sections to improve representation of not only the mainstream view but critical view as well. I hope that's all right with you, considering the prevalent aim in WP to represent neutrality.
-- Xernon 06.12.2004
:Hi there Xernon,
:I've removed your text for the time being as I think it needs a little discussion. Firstly, it is partly inaccurate and I think there's a bit of confusion between psychiatry and psychology. Psychology did not give rise to psychiatry (it originated from, and remains, part of the medical profession) - see  for a brief historical overview. Secondly I know of little evidence for "modern psychology was widely embraced by the totalitarian states of the time" (although I'd be happy to see evidence to the contrary) particularly in reference to the later claim that it had the "direct aim of altering brain function first by physical means". - Vaughan 11:16, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: www.cchr.org
Psychology purports to use the "scientific method", yet, its foundation is based on unscientifically proven assumptions about the existence of human beings. It assumes human existence traits like: normality, well-functioning, well-behaving, deviance, disorder, dysfunctional, and many others. Although, these assumptions may seem reasonable, and be well-intentioned, they are not scientifically proven. And it is from these unscientific assumptions, that the entire field of psychology is constructed; it is a "science" built on unscientific assumptions.
:Assumptions are never scientific nor unscientific, given that they are assumed and not proved. All sciences are based on some assumptions that may be more or less general. No science is 'true'. You may not agree on psychology's assumptions and that is fine. --pippo2001 02:07, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You may want to check scientific method and assumption. Then, please, give an example of a scientific assumption.  --pippo2001 06:58, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

text: You cannot fill the history of this page with your edits. You should thinks, write an edit, check it and more or less stay with it. Take care --pippo2001 20:57, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Much of this criticism is about the debate about the scientific validity of the social sciences or part of the biological sciences. As such, the debate really needs to be carried out on those pages. I think there are more subtle critiques of psychologica that can be put on these pages but that will have to come after a decent page is created, in the first place. Right now it is just a mess. So, stick around and maybe add something "positive" and then we will work on the "negative". And be sure to sign each addition to all pages. Thanks.Rsugden 18:48, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism 

message: I disagree with the implication in the article that statistical analysis is a "soft" research method.  Although statistics originated in the social sciences, it is currently used in all sciences inlcluding physics and biology.  Statistics is simply mathematical analysis of probablility based on a normal distribution (bell-curve). It can be applied to any natural phenomenon that can be quantified.  If the article is meant to indicate a criticism of overusing "statistical analysis of questionnaires" (i.e., the use of questionnaire/survey is a lesser method) then please say so.  As it reads now, the article appears to be criticisng the use of statistics in general.  If that's the case, all sciences have a problem.
With regard to statistics, this allows psychologists and other scientists to in fact make statments regarding what is (statistically speaking) normal - or perhaps it's better to say typical vs. atypical.  These are not a moral or value judgments, just statements as to what is statistically more common and what is not.  We never automatically equate atypical with undesireable.  When we run across something uncommon or atypical - good or bad - it naturally begs the question: "Why?" Good psychology is founded on this type of critical thinking, not "popular opinion."  In fact, as a psychologist, I spend a great deal of my time debunking poplular opinion.  Don't confuse the self help and pop pyschology you see on Oprah as legitimate psychology. Those people annoy us as much as they do anyone.  Any psychologist who goes around reifying popular opinion without first putting it to the test or at least citing existing research should and typically will be called down by his or her peers.
--- B. Boyd
:Some statistical methods are more art than science. For example, factor analysis. The procedure for determining factors is scientific, but the naming of the factors is entirely subjective and based on the researcher's POV. Same goes for many other tests as determining the power required is also subjective. dr.alf 01:10, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism regarding Statistical Analysis and Assumptions of Normalcy

message: I suggest that all the history of psychology that is present in this article is transferred to the new article "History of psychology" and only a short resumé is left here. Then the link to the article "History of psychology" can be put also on the list in the article "History of science". --Eleassar777 11:50, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. The article could use some editing, though. --Heida Maria 21:21, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: Well done. --KYPark 04:08, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of psychology 

message: Can someone add some information discussing the relationship (and differences) between psychology and psychiatry? Thanks!
: Difference is a sort of relationship. So your "relationship (and differences)" sounds somewhat awkward. Perhaps you may mean "difference and perhaps some other relationship." Being outside of psychiatry, I should say that psychology is psychology and psychiatry is psychiatry but both share psyche or mind rather than soul which suffers a very enigmatic (religious) connotation someone may not like. For further relationship, anyone could refer to psychology and psychiatry respectively, and know of, by, and for oneself. This would be the royal road, I guess. --KYPark 04:04, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Psychology and Psychiatry 

message: ===THE SCIENCE OF BEHAVIOUR AND MENTAL PROCESSES=== 
Nonymous-Raz
Hi there,
As mentioned in the article, psychology is not necessarily scientific, and some psychologists completely reject a scientific approach to the mind.
- Vaughan 07:37, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If that is so, then this article deserves the Pseudoscience category tag. --AI 00:42, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: A lot of people will give different accounts of this or that. But the general consesus amongs academics, practitioners and philosophers (of science) has been for a while that psychology is a science. dr.alf 01:19, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Psychology is based on scientific principles and is widely regarded by other scientists as a legitimate science. It is not a pseudoscience. --Cswrye 02:04, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition of Psychology 

message: Nonymous-Raz
Hi there,
As mentioned in the article, psychology is not necessarily scientific, and some psychologists completely reject a scientific approach to the mind.
- Vaughan 07:37, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If that is so, then this article deserves the Pseudoscience category tag. --AI 00:42, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: A lot of people will give different accounts of this or that. But the general consesus amongs academics, practitioners and philosophers (of science) has been for a while that psychology is a science. dr.alf 01:19, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Psychology is based on scientific principles and is widely regarded by other scientists as a legitimate science. It is not a pseudoscience. --Cswrye 02:04, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: THE SCIENCE OF BEHAVIOUR AND MENTAL PROCESSES

message: I have been working on a scheme to make the list of psychologists page more user friendly and informative, which has also made me think about the psychology info box with "areas" and "approaches". The "areas" are okay but minimal and I would like to amplify them. The "approaches" section isn't clear what that really means. It seems mostly psychotherapy approaches and/or theories of personality development, with a little from major areas of pscyhological study.
My idea is to have the info box have the following list:
*applied
*clinical
*cognition
*comparative
*cultural
*developmental
*differential
*educational
*experimental
*forensic
*industrial
*personality
*physiological
*social
The idea would be that all topics would fit under one of these major domains, so that cognition would have thinking, neurocognitive, neuroaffective, etc. Under clinical would go assessment and psychotherapy. Social psychology would have environmental psychology. Etc.
With 53 major divisions within the APA and some 440+ therapeutic programs, there is a danger that a more detailed list would get so big as to be inefficient. I hope I don't open a hornets nest with this issue but I thought I would throw it out there and see the reaction. If it is favorable, I will present some more organizing ideas. If I get overwhelming feedback to just let it be because it will cause too much debate, diluting our energies from writing articles, than I will live with it. (However, it will help me make the list of psychologists areas of speciality match with the psychology page, so I may come back with another proposal if this one is shot down!) Let me know what you think. Rsugden 21:09, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recategorization of areas of study 

message: :Psychology differs from sociology, anthropology, economics, and political  science, in part, by studying the behaviour of individuals (alone or  in groups) rather than the behaviour of the groups or aggregates themselves
Is the above statement, currently used in the article, concentrating the study of individuals vs. the study of groups truly sufficient to explain the differences between psychology and the various social sciences mentioned? For instance, isn't it true that economics is also concerned with the rational process behind the individual consumer's choices (for example), not exclusively with groups/aggregates? Likewise with anthropology--it certain studies the individual. Using the characterization currently given in the text as the primary point of differentiation may be problematic. ~ Dpr 03:11, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Psychology's relation to other fields 

message: See New Scientist, "Westerners and Easterners see the world differently". Something on that topic should be in Wikipedia - not sure exactly where. Rd232 14:12, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Psychology and culture

message: That experiment is unsourced, the conclusions to be drawn are not clear and this is not a main "Criticism of psychology" anyway. Here it is, moved from the article, incase anyone thinks that can be useful:
"The base of modern psychology involving attachment to their mothers is based solely on the comfort that they feel with them. When Harry Harlow experimented with the rhesus monkey's, nursing them on two types of mothers: 1) a wire mother, and 2) a cloth mother. While the monkey's with the cloth mother relied on that mother for both nourishment and comfort/safety, the monkey's that were nursed on the wire mother relied solely on them for nourishment and relied on the cloth for comfort. When feeling threatened or endangered, the monkey instantaneously clung to the cloth in hopes of finding comfort within it, for it is extremely similar to the touch of a mother monkey. This experiment shows the precedence and importance in which a monkey confides in his mother to ensure that the world around him is safe and that he is able to further out and venture and feel comfort within the new confines that he can now explore. Without that original feeling of safety and security, the monkey will constantly feel threatened by the surrounding world."
Jules LT 18:51, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's the deals with the monkeys mother attachment experiment?? 

message: I've added a lot of content to the Psychology (rewrite) page and given the article (what I think) is an organized layout. I think I'll start replacing the article on the main page, but I would be interested in others thoughts on how the rewrite has been organized. More content, is, of course, welcome.
--dzou 23:10, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The content from the rewrite has been merged into the main article. Most of the original content is actually still there because a lot of it is really good, but it's organized differently. Hopefully, the new structure will work well. Comments? --dzou 18:22, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't had the time to read all of this yet, however it seems better organized. At least less lists is a good thing. However, I think it's a bit odd that there is so much text about forensic psychology, a couple of lines could suffice.--Heida Maria 20:15, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. I left what was there before because it seemed like well-written content, but it is too long for the main psychology page. I've moved most of it to the Forensic psychology page, which didn't really have anything on it anyway. --dzou 22:06, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I've replaced the content on the main page with the changes made here. From now on, please edit the main Psychology page instead of this one. --dzou 18:20, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

text: This article is in the process of being merged into Psychology, and may be outdated. If necessary, please edit only the article mentioned above....
Since those statements were made, no visible improvements to that page have been made that have not been reflected on this main (Psychology) page, and additional extensive editing to this page have been done, so Psychology (rewrite) has fulfilled its purpose and has apparently outlived its usefulness. -DoctorW 05:46, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Replacing article with rewritten version