Talk:Experimental psychology

message: I'm sorry, but the "criticisms" given in this article are so weak that they are unworthy of being in the article at all. 
To the "postmodern criticism" - this is a total non-sequitur. Nothing in that paragraph follows from experimental psychology, because it is a method, not an ideology. While it is certainly possible that an experimental psychologist might think all of those things, it is equally as possible that another might think just the opposite. Experimental psychology has no ideological assumptions. This notion is ridiculous. 
To Skinner's criticism - this is no longer relevant. With the rise of neuroscience, we can observe mental activity at the level of the brain. No modern psychologists accept radical behaviorism.
To Jung's criticism - this is even less relevant than Skinner's criticism. The notion that the mind is related to the "soul" rather than the brain expresses a substance dualism which we can reject on its face. While it is true that psychologists may learn from experience more than in the laboratory, no psychologists disagree with this. In fact, field/observational research is very much a part of experimental psychology. But it does not follow that "he will know how to doctor the sick with a real knowledge of the human soul." This is ridiculous and wrong. ArcadianGenesis
:: I agree with these comments. The Criticisms were very one-sided. I noted published criticisms of "Critical Theory" by significant philosophers and social scientists. I assume Paul Meehl etc. may have written something, also. It would be fine to just remove the whole section, because Wikipedia is supposed to give due weight of knowledge in reliable and leading sources. It is not obvious that (shudder) Marcuse or (Nazi-psychologist wannabe) Jung meet that standard. Further, I shall remove the Skinner topic immediately, because it is a (weird) criticism of cognitive psychology, not of experimental psychology. Thanks, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 20:11, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree (see bellow). I also think that the cricisms section is difficult to read and complex when a simple section on external validity would be easy to introduce along side methods Ralphmcd (talk) 00:20, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

text: I went ahead and made this change. Again, feel free to re-add if you can rewrite it so that it is clear and contains criticism. Thanks. ParticipantObserver (talk) 10:01, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticisms? 

message: : Not knowing the specifics of your question, I'll assume you're asking about educational requirements (and being an American, I can only answer based on my experience in the US). Most experimental psychologists that I know have at least a bachelor's degree, usually in psychology, biological psychology, neuroscience, or cognitive science, all of which share quite a bit of overlap in terms of university course requirements. Being a rich field, the course of study (at least at UCLA) typically includes a general introduction to neuroanatomy, pharmacology, and behaviorism, psychophysics (and signal detection theory), learning & memory, human development, artificial intelligence, Research Design & Statistics, and others.
: To work professionally, many also obtain an advanced degree in psychology, such as a master's degree or a PhD, which often means that they've produced a research-based thesis, and have a rich understanding of current literature (such as the APA's Journal of Experimental Psychology series) and modern experimental techniques and practices.
: I hope that helps. Best wishes, Diberri | Talk 19:36, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)
In the article it mentioned Wundt as the founder of the school of structuralism...however, I thought it was his student Titchener who developed the school? Clarification would be great...
I have not really thought about it before, but is an experimental psychologist not just a psychologist who uses experimental methods? In fact I think a nice section on the advantages and disadvantages of the experimental method would be nice... Ralphmcd (talk) 09:06, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: What does it take to be a Experimetnal Psychologist?

message: Others have questioned the edits about medieval Islamic science. Therefore, you may be interested about the following, which was posted on the talk page for Experiment (Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 20:04, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Quote from [[:Talk:Experiment]]: Concern about misuse of sources

message: "A request for comments has been filed concerning the conduct of . Jagged 85 is one of the main contributors to Wikipedia (over 67,000 edits, he's ranked 198 in the number of edits), and practically all of his edits have to do with Islamic science, technology and philosophy. This editor has persistently misused sources here over several years. This editor's contributions are always well provided with citations, but examination of these sources often reveals either a blatant misrepresentation of those sources or a selective interpretation, going beyond any reasonable interpretation of the authors' intent. I searched the page history, and found 20 edits by Jagged 85 in March 2010. Tobby72 (talk) 20:56, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misuse of sources 

message: Developmental psychologists routinely use experimental and quasi-experimental moethods to discover developmental tendencies and phenomena. As such, I've taken it out of the first paragraph and included it in the a of topics investigated by experimental psychologists. XL2D (talk) 19:03, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: On Developmental Psychology

message: Hey all. I'll be working on this page for the next while in hopes of getting it up to GA/FA status. I'll probably add to it bit by bit, so if you see something that could be improved, be ruthless! :P
I'm a new wikipedian, so please don't hesitate to give me advice on page construction, content quality, personal hygeine, or anything else you think would be useful.
Also, if anyone is interested in working on this page too, let me know so we can divide the work up or collabourate on sections to avoid duplicating each others' work.
My books are in another city right now so it will be a couple weeks before many citations can be added, but rest assured they're coming. XL2D (talk) 14:51, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plan to work on this page 

message: Before I start I would like to point out that I am an experimental psychologist. So I'm not having a go.
As far As I could see there is no mention of the problem of external validity. There is some critism that says similar things, but it might be hard to follow and rather obtuse for some. As external validity is most straight forward problem for much experimental psychology - a brief section on this would seem sensible and easy to understand. Doesn't need to be more than a paragraph. Pehaps also some critisim along the lines that it only reveals syntax, not meaning. Coppying wholesale (feel free to hat) "cognitive psychology essentially syntactical in its structure and thus cannot accommodate meanings. Constructs such as ‘arousal’ or ‘gist’ are defined in terms of relations of the relations in which they stand to each other and do not seem to be widely related to their referents in the world (McGhee, 2001). A clear example of this is connectionist networks such a Seidenberg and McClelland’s (1989) model of language. How is it that an activation pattern can be related to semantic knowledge of a word given that it is not related to the words referent? As Searle (1980) points out in his Chinese room thought experiment, we would not say that a computer with an English to Chinese dictionary understands Chinese, so why do we think that cognitive psychology explains understanding if all it proposes are relations between concepts (or activation patterns)". I know that would be sysnthesis as it is from a paper I wrote. But it could be stated shorter simple quoting a few philosophers opinions. Soz for the length Ralphmcd (talk) 00:15, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  In fact after sleeping on it I suddently realised that the second part about syntax applies more to cog sci. Mea culpa. Ralphmcd (talk) 09:02, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  No mention of external validity 

message: Hello to all. I attend Clemson University, where I am enrolled in my senior psych 492 capstone course. Under the instruction of Dr. June Pilcher I will be editing this article as my first article edit. Please give me any advice or input as you see fit for the article. Thank you. 
Jasmins1 (talk) 16:15, 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 16:48, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Editing 

message: Hello to all. So far I have added more content to the article, instead of taking anything out. I am working on getting adequate references as well as getting the work that I have already done peer reviewed by my classmates and also reviewed by my instructor and TA. Once again, feel free to give me any advice and take a peek inside my sandbox!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasmins1 (talk • contribs) 16:40, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update 

message: I have added some content to this article concerning the four canons of science as well as internal and external validity. Please feel free to comment and suggestions or advice for what I have added. Thanks!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasmins1 (talk • contribs) 21:52, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Final Update

message: Hello all, I am doing some further modifications to this article as my final assignment for my 492 capstone course. This time, I chose to add a section on experimental designs. As always, feel free to check out my sandbox (there is a link on my page to the second one) and offer any tips! thanks!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasmins1 (talk • contribs) 15:15, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Continuing to modify!

message: As far as I can see, the Other methods described in the section Methodology are not part of experimental psychology (proper). I have already re-arranged the contents of this Methodology section, but my actual proposal would be to delete other than experimental methods from the section, merge the subsections into one section without further division and adopt a very brief version of the sub-categories of experiments as in Experiment.
However, I first wanted to ask whether there was or is any reason that these Other methods were included?
AeAnBr (talk) 14:52, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Changes implemented, if there is no further need for discussion, I will remove this section in a week or so. AeAnBr (talk) 07:40, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove 'Other methods' 

message: A significant quantity of this article seems to be merely padding, containing merely generalised statements concerning overarching subjects such as science, the scientific method, statistics etc, that if pertinent to understanding a specific point regarding Experimental Psychology, could and should be included by way of an internal reference.  
For instance, if an article concerns a French philosopher it should not include sections about the geography of France, nor its politics or language, nor should it contain sections explaining what philosophy is or the history of european philosophy or the various schools or traditions of philosophy.  These, where relevant, should be included as briefly as possible, if not simply with a title, and referenced  internally to wiki articles that explain them in oultine and in detail.  "X was a member of the Y school, and stongly advocated Z" where X, Y, and Z would all be referenced.  
I cannot see for instance why the entire section called Four Canons of Science, without any justification for this title being given, should not be deleted.     Similarly Scales of measurement, Validity and reliability, and so on.  The section on Reliability also seems to be particularly absurd.  
LookingGlass (talk) 12:21, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  REWRITE REQUIRED 

message: I've just upgraded the article quality to C, based on WP:PSYCH's quality scale. Congratulations to everyone that's worked on this! My main suggestion for where to start to improve the article further is to cite reliable sources for all claims, and medical-standard reliable sources for any medical claims. If you need any help, you can post on the WikiProject Psychology's discussion page --Xurizuri (talk) 01:56, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improving article quality 

message: I'm proposing that Laboratory experimentation in psychology be merged into this article, Experimental psychology, specifically into the Experiments section. Firstly, if anyone has another idea of where it could be merged, please raise it - we might as well figure this out now. I think that the lab article requires context that this article will give it (as seen in its duplication of some of what's discussed in this article), and that this article would be improved by more specific mention of laboratory experimentation. I will note that there is almost nothing in the lab article that isn't already said better here, but the broader topic that the lab article covers would be more useful here. For all its faults, laboratory experimentation is integral to modern and historical experimental psychology. --Xurizuri (talk) 07:06, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge proposal 

message: — Assignment last updated by BrookeCarr01 (talk) 23:43, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Psychology Capstone