Talk:Positive disintegration

message: I just edited the first line of the paragraph on 'the third factor', but it still doesn't read smoothly. I'm not sure if it's a proper noun or not. It should probably be rephrased by someone who is more familiar with the correct use of Dabrowski's terms. Thanks. 76.164.35.146 (talk) 19:16, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Third Factor 

message: it might just be me just i really think the POV in this needs to be looked over, 
its sounds a bit Dabrowski fan-boy-ish
118.208.236.250 (talk) 14:55, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, really? Please cite specific instances of "fanboy-ishness', and, better still, suggest how they might be corrected.Pernoctus (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 20:38, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just read through this. I couldn't find a word of criticism or critique, nothing to say how the theory is viewed by mainstream psychology and psychiatry. It has a far from neutral POV. 'Fan boy' might be overstated, but it does give the impression of having been written by an acolyte.Stub Mandrel (talk) 20:11, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: I changed all instances of the word "level" followed by a number to be capitalized.  Talking about the "second level" would continue to be lower case.
Currently scattered throughout the article, levels are named with Roman numerals sometimes and in others with Arabic ones.  I believe in the books, level numbers are almost invariably Roman.  Should it be otherwise on Wiki?
--CarbonWire 04:25, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Styles in TPD 

message: This article is very long. Since OEs are often discussed out of a TPD context and are complicated in themselves, overexcitabilities eventually will need its own article. Dabrowski uses a bucket of terms with unique meaning, such as DP, multilevel/unilevel, authentism, negative adjustment, personality ideal, autopsychotherapy, autonomy, and hierarchy of values (constantly). Each of these could take up an entire article, though there must exist a balance between providing usefulness and, in essence, importing all of his books. The theory is so interrelated that it hardly makes sense to separate anything out of the main page.  However, according to Wikipedia:Summary_style, given the way the article has thus far developed, maybe a separate page should be created to describe the different levels.
--CarbonWire 04:52, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additional TPD articles 

message: What is the section on HSP doing here in this article? I can think of several other theories that could be linked to overexitability. This is probably some individual's personal opinion, a correlation he or she perceived. I can see how it would make sense, but I see no reason why it should be mentioned here, unless some scientific research of theory, or some writing that links the two can be referenced. I propose the paragraph on HSP is removed: Wikipedia is not a platform to post one's personal opinions or insights, unless you post it on the discussion page.
Personally I think HSP is a bad explanation for a specific pathological phenomenon. E.g. Dr. Jeffrey E. Young, the man behind the highly successful Schema Therapy, links high sensitivity to the Self-Sacrifice Schema (Young 2003, page 246-251). The issue with such individuals is not their high sensitivity, but an emphasis on other-directedness in the form of self-sacrificial behavior, a learned behavior that can be dealt with in therapy (as opposed to the views of HSP-adepts). I think the implications of TPD en overexitability involves much more that high sensitivity.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.91.60.166 (talk) 12:31, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  HSP?? 

message: I should personally like to see an informed section on the falsifiability of this theory, in terms both of principle and of what relevant studies have actually shown.
Paul Magnussen (talk) 18:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Falsifiability 

message: That he went through this positive disintegration by himself?
Discuss.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.23.54.32 (talk) 20:08, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is Dąbrowski trying to say? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Positive disintegration. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160117225340/http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.490.9371&rep=rep1&type to http://www.junginstitute.org/pdf_files/JungV8N2p11-44.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:21, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: A visiting editor, Mlschlappy, has introduced a specious and badly written interpretation of TPD Level 1 as a thinly veiled attempt to self-advertise their own recently published material. There is no evidence that the author's apparent migration from their alleged first specialism to another quite unrelated one is valid and seems little more than an academic prank, by them or someone else purporting to be them. How can this advance knowledge or reflect well on Wikipedia? Nice try: I propose it is deleted.--Po Mieczu (talk) 02:00, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The edit you reverted was not vandalism, as it includes a reliable citation. You must achieve consensus here on the talk page before removing sourced additions. Also, someone's profession has no bearing on their right or ability to edit here. Thank you. Icarus of old (talk) 13:49, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Icarus, Po Mieczu indicated that the editor (with username Mlschlappy) referenced material written by Marie-Lise Schläppy. I shall not judge the user's intentions, but the question of whether Wikipedia has a policy on editors self-referencing (introducing her own published material) is relevant and the revert should be maintained until this matter is settled.69.28.223.68 (talk) 17:39, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not a WP:SPS; it comes from a peer-reviewed journal and, therefore, does not violate Wikipedia policy. Please ask an administrator if you have further concerns over this policy. All best. Icarus of old (talk) 21:22, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marine biologist tries to depict Level 1! 

message: I'm trying to sort out what's going on this article, and have found a number of journal references about the theory which I plan to use to increase the percentage of secondary sources per Wikipedia guidelines.  This is in addition to the journal article in the previous section of this talk page, which I am also examining to see if it can be used for more citations.
Overall, there seems to be too much narration as opposed to summary here.  Some of that belongs on Dąbrowski's bio page.
I've addressed some of the various sections below.
Ixat totep (talk) 08:01, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Attempting to find a way forward

message: This seems tenuously related to the core theory, and should probably move the bio page if it is not already present there.
Ixat totep (talk) 08:01, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Gifted Individuals

message: This section has no citations whatsoever.  If I can find any I'll keep it, otherwise it seems better to remove it as it sounds like original (rather than encyclopedic) material.
Ixat totep (talk) 08:01, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Self-Actualization

message: I'm not sure what to do with the "Obstacles to the theory" section, as most of it seems to be irrelevant to the theory itself.  I split the one clear criticism into a new Criticism section.  Most of it probably belongs on the bio page, if anywhere.  The part about Piechowski probably belongs in a section noting further work- I believe I have a citation for this.  Information about what is out of print and/or only available in Polish probably belongs in the "Main works" section on the bio page.
The bit about Many of these students continue to study and speak on the theory, most advancing a deeply personal understanding of what the theory means to them. seems interesting but I have no idea how to substantiate it and whether this is a criticism or an indication of a diversification of thought or what.
Ixat totep (talk) 08:01, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Obstacles section

message: In the beginnig of the secction over Dabrowski's theory, there is a lot of personal interpretations about his psychology that certainly comprise an enormous bias over the text. For example, uncritically stating that his psycholical thought is a fruit of his Catholic upbringing and that he was influenced by this upbringing in the composition if his psychological thought is something that lacks evidence for being stated the way it is, because it's stated as an absolute fact, not as someone's interpretation  what it is. This sort of criticism and analysis of his psychological thought should not be added in the main text of his theory, it should be removed to the section of criticism, because it is secondary to his thought and made by someone else, and it's not part of his theory at all. It should not be confused with his thought itself. This criterion of separation and organization is followed in other Wikipedia articles. Otherwise, you'd mix and put in the same level Dobrowski's theory and the criticism of his theory, what doesn't make sense at all, since the former peecedes the latter. You can't criticize someone's work without knowing it first. I believe this part and other parts, like the conclusion that Dobrowki's psychological work is a fruit of his pursuit of self-harm, a statement that is not sourced in any way in the text, and that he being submitted to experimentation by the Nazi has shaped his psychological thought, well, this is again criticism of Dobrowski's psychological thought and if it won't be removed, I can say that mixing someone else criticism of Dobrowski theories with Dobrowski theory itself is both disrespect to his thought and manipulation of information. This is a way of steering one's thought when reading this article. Of course that his ideas caused controversy because they are involved with subjects that are psychologically painful to many people. He couldn't help be subjected to defamation. 2804:D45:A759:F810:0:0:C3F0:B259 (talk) 16:40, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Defamation 

message: The most recent revert of the lengthy material taken directly from a self-published website falls in line with WP policy. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources if you have further questions about what sources are acceptable, feasible, and appropriate. Icarus of old (talk) 00:26, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Self-published sources against WP policy