Talk:Henry Murray

message: The connection to the Unabomber I have traced back to Chase and what Kaczynski told him - so I formulated that accordingly. I replaced the link with reference to the book.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Irmgard (talk • contribs) 10:09, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unabomber: Ted Kaczynski 

message: Regarding a connection between Murray and Gottlieb, I found only lots of third hand texts, most of them very similar and in one or other way conspiration theory-oriented, no real evidence, so I left this out. --Irmgard 10:09, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree we should take out the connection to Sidney Gottlieb until it can be firmly established. I will be searching for more reliable sources about this. --AI 20:45, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Central Intelligence Agency|CIA's]] head of the [[Technical Services Staff|TSS]] [[Sidney Gottlieb]] 

message: While it is of potential interest to some,  I fail to see how the third paragraph under career is necessary for an understanding of Henry Murray and his work. I think there should be more discussion about his need theory and press. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ccxsen (talk • contribs) 
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ccxsen (talk • contribs) 00:24, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What Relevance does the detailed discussion about Hitler and homosexuality have to do with understanding Murray? 

message: It seems to me that the experiments conducted at Harvard, said to have produced the Unabomber, have been minimised in this description of Murray. Barely a mention is given to the somewhat extreme nature of the experiments and the link to the Unabomber is presented as tenuous. I can only see one motivation for this and it represents a breach of NPOV.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.184.30.16 (talk • contribs) 14:47, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur. There's a whole book (controversial, true, but very notable) on this subject. Murray's mind-control/ego-destruction research was significant and ethically gray, even for the most stalwart cold warrior. A couple sentences on a topic of such obvious interest, and with such ample source material to draw from, looks suspiciously like somebody trying to protect Murray's legacy. —PopeFauveXXIII 02:34, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. If a book is controversial, it's likely that someone is taking issues with what the author is presenting as "truth". The ultimate source for this is what Alston Chase says he was told by Ted Kaczynski. (Of course no one else can verify the claims since Harvard doesn't appear to be allowing anyone to view the study: .) We should fee free to mention these claims to the extent they were notable enough to be discussed in reliable secondary sources, but we shouldn't accept them as "truth". -Location (talk) 00:55, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV and unabomber connection? 

message: the TAT is no longer considered valid, so I will correct the statement that it is widely used by psychologists.
it is used by social workers and other less qualified personnel as an icebreaker, not a diagnostic tool, however, that may be only for the Rorschach, so I will yield to discussion. Llama (talk) 04:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  TAT fallout 

message: Were his experiments under the Mk Ultra project? The sources don't mention this. Zambelo; talk 02:28, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Harvard Human Experiments - Mk Ultra? 

message: I asked a reknowned Dutch positive psychologist if he could give some citations for Murrays supposed contribution to positive psychology. He stated that Murray's theories are not considered as fundamental for positive psychology. Therefore I removed "and ideas relating to positive psychology." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mlh 8861 (talk • contribs) 13:02, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Positive psychology