Talk:Energy (psychological)

message: Article merged: See old talk-page here  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seaj11 (talk • contribs) 11:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

message: I see no reason why anybody should object. Go ahead, full steamHallenrm 07:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I second that. Em3ryguy (talk) 23:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge with psychic energy

message: The History section either needs many citations added, or should be trimmed down to the first paragraph. All the rest of that section is written like a personal essay rather than an objective article, and makes very little sense. Citations would put this to rest, and if none can be found, then the relevant information should be removed on the basis of its inaccuracy.
IceMetalPunk 04:37, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Modify History Section

message: Is this article about vim and vigor, about historical uses of the term "energy" in relation to mental processes, or about Energy (spirituality)? Can we just pick one and excise and merge as appropriate? - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 15:26, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Focus 

message: I removed a large portion of this article because:
(1) It didn't deal with the topic
(2) It was not cited and contained information that was likely false
(3) It was poorly written
In my judgment, this reflected poorly on wikipedia and warranted immediate action as it bordered on vandalism. I'm not an expert wikipedian, so I don't know what the official policy for this is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.199.251 (talk • contribs) 2008-07-03T04:39:19
: That is fine. - Eldereft (cont.) 20:36, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  I deleted a lot of content 

message: perhaps this page shouldbemoved to mental activity or similar so it won't be quite as plagued by over-zealous skeptics trying to debunk "energy therapy" type of quackery. --dab (𒁳) 12:11, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Seconded! Famousdog (talk) 15:44, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

text: I disagree. Wikipedia merges too many articles these days. If it is merged with a larger article then it will likely be relegated to a single paragraph. Furthermore mental activity redirects to this article.  Lemmiwinks2 (talk) 15:47, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I encourage not moving.  It is precisely to enable the distinction of this as pseudoscience.  If that undermines someone's agenda for scientific basis for "energy therapy" then so be it.  It is what it is.  Practically the entire scientific community are zealous skpetics who would debunk "energy therapy" as not only quackery, but pseudoscience.  It is OK to believe in pseudoscience and non-scientific philosophy, but it is not OK to characterize it as legit science.  There is a paramount distinction between mental activity and physic energy, the latter is pseudoscience, the former is legit.  John (talk) 18:20, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think his point was that this article should be about the legitimate scientific Freudian and Jungian concepts and not about psuedoscientific ideas like 'energy therapy'. After all, the whole point of applying concepts like energy and force to mental activity is to try to form a basis for a scientific theory showing how mental entities follow logical rules just like physical objects do. Lemmiwinks2 (talk) 19:30, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Your use of the word "legitimate" implies that you think psychoanalysis is not pseudoscience. I would add simply that many people (myself included) think it is. Decades of experimentation and brain imaging have failed to produce any kind of convincing evidence for the id, ego, superego, collective unconscious, and other such psychoanalytic "concepts" that you claim are "legitimate". Famousdog (talk) 14:30, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The concept of psychological energy is a legitimate fully scientific hypothesis. Given how very little we know about the inner working of the mind it is hardly surprising if experimentation has not yet proven its existance. I have neither said nor implied anything about psychoanalysis. Lemmiwinks2 (talk) 22:14, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, we know shedloads about the inner workings of the mind and I fail to see how any of the material in this article relates to it. If, as you say, "the concept of psychological energy is a legitimate fully scientific hypothesis", then can you provide a workable definition of this hypothesis and perhaps design an exeriment to measure it? Famousdog (talk) 10:04, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

text: This term is used precisely as things measured in Joules, people ascribe scientific properties of energy to this as if it were something based on ligitimate scientific energy.  If it is not scientific energy, then a more appropriate word would be in order.  And of course, we have to be consistent with people will just not understand energy as something else; it isn't something else.  John (talk) 05:59, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

text: Seems a bit like blowing something up so nobody can steal it. It kinda defeats the purpose doesnt it? After all the entire article is specifically about mental 'energy'. thats the whole point of the article. can we maybe pursue other options. like maybe having the article locked? Lemmiwinks2 (talk) 22:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: move