Talk:Psychology of self

message: The earliest formulation of the self in modern psychology from the distinction between the self as I, the subjective knower, and the self as Me, the object that is known. 
this sentence makes no sense.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.14.157.109 (talk) 21:12, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: The self (philosophy) article is currently an uninformative stub. If it were to be fleshed out it would largley duplicate this article ("self (psychology)") as the two are derived from each other (or so it seems to me at this point). Thus I propose merging both articles either under the title "Self (philosophy and psychology)" or "Self" (with the disambiguation page being "self (disambiguation)". Hyacinth 20:19, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I have now also discovered Self-concept. Hyacinth 07:01, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The Other, as in self/other, used to redirect to Subject-object problem. Hyacinth 07:32, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Self (philosophy and psychology)

message: I was linked to the Self (psychology) article from the Archetype article dealing with Jung's theory. This article doesn't seem to have a lot to say about Jung's use of the word "Self" as an archetype. Unfortunately I am a stranger to the subject. Does the article explain Jung's "self" at all? If it does, should this be labeled? Or does a Jung section need to be added? --Instant Classic 23:03, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jungian Self 

message: In WP there appears to be a mixture of hyphenated and non-hyphenated 'self' terms.  It could take a lot to track them all through; in the short-term it might be best for those working on this page to help ensure there are redirects e.g., self concept -> self-concept and vice-versa, etc. Jtneill - Talk 07:36, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hyphenated vs. non-hyphenated self terminology 

message: Commenting this out for now; needs to be written/explained more clearly: 
The quantifying and classifying process is referred to by Michel Foucault (1975, 1977) as being the issue of ‘the calculable man’: when the masses are classified they can be exploited as individuals and it is individuality that allows this to occur. Jtneill - Talk 08:09, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Foucault - needs work 

message: I think, we should include a brief overview of the buddhist concept: No-self. - Nearfar 16:02, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  No-self 

message: It doesn't seem like anyone has been talking about this page for awhile.  I'm pretty new to contributing to Wikipedia, so please feel free to push me in the right direction if I do or say something wrong.  The Self is an ENORMOUS topic in psychology (both personality and social psychology) and this page needs a major overhaul to reflect that importance.  First off, the self in psychology should be distinct from that in philosophy.  While there are some intersections (e.g. James, Freud), each discipline has such a thorough treatment of the topic that it would be impractical to fit all of that content into one article.  Second, I think this article would benefit from a historical overview of the term in psychology, which has gone through multiple interpretations throughout the decades.  A historical overview might begin with William James' (1900) distinction between the I and the Me, and end with the distinction that personality vs social psychologists currently place on the term.  Thirdly, Kohut's formulation of selves, while interesting, are by no means the crux of psychological research and theory on the self.  At the most, two or three sentences on his contributions are merited.  Additionally, the second section of the article is more or less either not psychology or not about the self.  It should be entirely stricken from the article.  Fourth, I would suggest merging the self-concept article with this one.  This is more a suggestion based on my own experience with the construct, though I can understand how others might wish to keep the concepts distinct.  I make the suggestion because the more broad topic of "the self" (in social psychology) encompasses other constructs like self-concept, self-image, multiple selves, etc.  Anyhow, I'm just worried about this page because it is the first site to show up when one google's "the self," and the information provided in this article is by no means representative of how the self is studied in psychology.  It requires more than a couple revisions, in my opinion.  I'm just hesitant to go about doing a major deletion spree before consulting hopefully more experience wikipedians.Chrono.Psych (talk) 03:25, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Self (Psychology)? 

message: The summary of Nikolas Rose says: "Rose believes that freedom assists governments and exploitation."
I've never read Rose, but this sounds wrong. --zenohockey (talk) 23:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nikolas Rose hates freedom? 

message: Have added somwhat from fr wiki here Jacobisq (talk) 10:55, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Winnicott

message: This addition would integrate ideas already stated in the section of social psychology, however it dives into the notion of how our self is shaped through culture and our own individuality. This section also should involve the looking-glass self, introspection, and social comparisons. Bmcomer (talk) 15:07, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Welcome! Please remember that Wikipedia is not an academic paper or essay! Wikipedia articles should not be based on WP:primary sources, but on reliable, published secondary sources (for instance, journal reviews and professional or advanced academic textbooks) and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources (such as undergraduate textbooks). WP:MEDRS describes how to identify reliable sources for medical information, which is a good guideline for many psychology articles as well. With friendly regards, Lova Falk talk 16:39, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  What shapes the self 

message: — Assignment last updated by Wfmira (talk) 16:23, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Psychology of Financial Planning II

message: I did remove the critique section because the information currently in it was not concise or offering any great deal. Before it is added, there would need to be research into the literature for the critiques of the theories and ideas posted.  KaigedWolf (talk) 16:45, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Critique Section