Talk:Psychology/Archive 2

message: In an encyclopedic entry as vast as the topic of psychology, a limited "See also" section cannot contain everything. You'll notice that none of the 53 divisions of the APA are even part of this list. In no way does Critical psychology belong there. -DoctorW 07:20, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  I think that list is much too long.  Computer science - that's rather far fetched IMO.  We can't list every field that intersects with psychology, we'd end up adding every article in Wikipedia.  I'll remove that one for now... /Skagedal 23:20, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'd leave that one. AI research is a big topic in current research psychology. I'd add statistics to it as well... 134.58.253.131 16:11, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Then link to Artificial intelligence. Computer science is a whole lot more than AI.  Statistics, OTOH, I agree is quite relevant. /skagedal... 01:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Fringe "subfields" of psychology

message: would you like to publish this article? -- Zondor 22:23, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  publication 

message: I find it odd that behavior analysis is completely lacking.--Heida Maria 16:58, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Subfields of psychology

message: Hi, 
First of all : sorry to writte here while i do not edit much english articles. 
The wish to review the categories is a very good idea, because the categories are awful. I do not know a lot of psychologycal schools , but in the categorie(s) i know a great work has to be made. Why not creating a project ? It would have been more comfortable to work on the categories before, but this task has to be talked, discussed, and most of all it has to be collective.
I would contribute but i do not have enough english contributions to create it. Someone willing to SAVE this category ? 
Merry Christamas, pyl 18:13, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Project psycho 

message: Meditation is currently a nominee on WP:IDRIVE. If you would like to see this article improved vote for it on WP:IDRIVE.--Fenice 15:33, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Improvement Drive

message: The image "a couple in love" (:Image:Erin & David.jpg) seemed very much like a vanity image that didn't illustrate the text any better than the current image of an anonymous crowd (:Image:Shibuya tokyo.jpg). If you oppose this change please state your reasons here as I am open to discussion on this matter. Semiconscious • talk 08:29, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I put the couple in love picture there, and wasn't sure wheither it belonged. The current image is better. --Heida Maria 23:15, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Image

message: Before we had a nice little overview of the history of psychology, with a link to the main article. Now we have this very long text, and it just makes the article seem cluttered. Why not just keep the short summary text and expand the history of psychology article instead? --Heida Maria 23:19, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: History section

message: I don't think it is appropriate that the first thing people see when they read this article is a picture of Freud; he is NOT representative of psychology as it is today. The same goes for this section, which I want removed (at least as an introduction section):
Freud divided the mind into the id (an individual's basic needs and instincts), the superego (personal and cultural values and norms), and the ego (the central, organising self, whose job it is to satisfy the id but not upset the superego). [1]
C. G. Jung founded the school of analytical psychology and introduced the notion of the collective unconscious, a term taken from philosophy and used by Jung to describe symbols or archetypes that he believed might be common to all cultures.
''
There are also the Conscious, Subconscious, and Superconsciousness, a related but not identical set of categories.
''
The behaviour and mental processes of animals (human and non-human) can be described through animal cognition, ethology, and comparative psychology as well as animal psychology.
''
Social psychology intertwines sociology with psychology in their shared study of the nature and causes of human social behavior, with an emphasis on how people think towards each other and how they relate to each other. Social Psychology aims to understand how we make sense of social situations.
Plus this article is getting way too long (see also my comment above about the history of psychology.
--Heida Maria 18:30, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Psychoanalysis is not psychology

message: * JA: First of all, this is not a problem that is specific to the article Psychology, but one that affects almost any article with a very generic title.  We should not expect too much from such an article.  It needs to be more than a disambiguation page, but it can hardly be expected to do more than serve as a hub for directing the reader to the many-splintered facets or a massively complex subject, pursued by thinkers from a panoply of diverse points of view in a historical panorama of sundry climes and times.   There will be inevitable tensions pulling on any such hub.  Perhaps we can help the centre to hold not too slouchily, but it will take some care and a lot of respect for the vastening variety of aspects that go to make up the full subject matter, er, mind.  Jon Awbrey 18:34, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: On the role of articles with very generic titles

message: I completely agree with everyone that having the picture of Freud in the introduction is ridiculous and it should definitely be removed, also there is no good reason why the intro should start out by stating that Freud divided the mind into the Id and whatever, it gives the reader an incorrect impression of modern psychology, to which Freud’s unscientific ideas bear no relation. 
Also the photo of Freud is in copyright violation, so it should be removed either way.
70.68.234.153 06:49, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. The Freud pic does little more than feed the stereotype of psychology. -Nicktalk 07:00, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Whether a person uses the scientific method or not is not a matter of opinion. It is not POV to say that Freud did not use the scientific method, because it is widely known that he did not use experiments to support his theories.Ivan 04:47, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Freud

message: Speaking of Freud, the last bit in the intro about the id and the unconscious is very out of place and written at a much lower standard than the rest of the article. I think it should be removed. If someone wants a reference to Freud, that's fine but the introduction is definitely not the place for that sort of thing. Perhaps a paragraph or a link could be added to the history section.
70.68.234.153 07:10, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, the article is much improved now. --Heida Maria 13:28, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  introduction 

message: I apologize in advance for ruffling some feathers, but the links section was becoming a bit much. I've removed several links for the following reasons:
*Spanish language sites are not appropriate for the English-language wiki.
*Blogs abound and are non-encyclopedic, with no way of determining which of the thousands of existing psychology-related blogs to include.
*The free essays site contains 5 copyrighted essays written by university students and is therefore not appropriate for wikipedia.
*The University of Maryland site is a link to a professor's webpage with some links to some essays; again, these types of sites abound and there is no reason to favor one over another.
*The "Fireflies in the Shadow of the Sun" is not a good representation of criticism of psychology, it is a person's views on psychology as a career choice. There are better, more concise, more coherent, well-referenced anti-psychology views out there.
Semiconscious • talk 19:32, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was thinking these same things. The links sections are much better now. -Nicktalk 21:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree; less is more... --Heida Maria 00:01, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Links removed

message: The history section states that behaviorists did not believe in mental states. This is not very accurate, behaviorists believed that the mental states could not be scientifically studied, because introspectionists and Freudians have been trying to study mental states for decades and were and able to do so scientifically. They obviously believed in thought, and emotions, because they experienced them themselves. The sentence should be changed to reflect that. 
:Correct. Feel free to change that. --Heida Maria 00:01, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: History

message: * JA: Taking the long view of history — which involves looking at the persistent themes that pervade the transient terminologies and requires looking at more than just the last time through the loop — behaviorial thinking and cognitive thinking did not either of them arise in reaction to the other.  The generic ideas that make up these two approaches have lain in the field for as long as anybody can remember or trace.  The feature that marked our last atavar of B-ism was not an interest in behavior, which is a constant interest, but its died-in-the-wool dedication to a particular style of reductionism, a particular notch in Ockham's razor.  Most folks today, even some B-ists, agree that its former models were not adequate to the res.  The level of complexity in the theoretical models is the critical factor here, not the belief in a particular modality of being.  In the past, and even currently, there are examples of theories that invoke "mental states" and such but that remain even more severely reductionist than any B-ist paradigm of the 1950's.  Jon Awbrey 14:40, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: On historical cycles

message: Does anyone think that the biological psychology article should redirect to "neuropsychology"?
On the account that they are essentially different terms for the same study? 
Ivan 00:32, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Although they are definitely similar, biological psychology is a broader term because biological psychologists examine more than just the nervous system (e.g. hormones). So I think they should be separate. --Heida Maria 10:44, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biological Psychology 

message: * JA: I have reverted the major changes made by an anonymous IP 70.68.234.153 who did not show (or maybe know about?) the courtesy of using an edit line to describe changes, much less the courtesy of discussing what is clearly in need of discussion.  I'm sorry about having to revert a couple of changes made after but folks should have known better than to allow that sort of sneak attack.  We are in a discussion phase, and I personally prefer to do that without a lot of formal rigamarole.  Much good can come of discussion from different angles, and I see no hurry about it.  Jon Awbrey 13:28, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion phase

message: * JA: If it weren't kinda dull without an image, I would leave it out altogether.  I have seen places where a bit of Java code cyclically or randomly selects a different image from a database of images each time one brings up the page, and it might be a good idea to ask around for something like that.  In such a context, I'd have no problem with Wundt getting his 15 minutes of fame.  However, the statement that "Wundt is generally acknowledged as a founder of experimental psychology" is not generally acknowledged — there's a not insignificant cadre of psychologists who assign that paternity to William James, and another crew who excavate rather deeper foundations.  But we're really talking about eponymous icons here, not literal priority.  Of Freud one can truthfully say that psychology as a whole, and not just this or that branch of it, has the shape it has today because of his impact on it.  Jon Awbrey 14:12, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Image

message: I find that the background section detracts from the article. For one thing it's not very well written, but more importantly it contains no important information - it has a few tidbits about Freud and social psychology both of which are covered better in other parts of the article - Freud is talked about in the history section, and social psychology is in the “scopes of psychology” section. It's also interesting to note that the paragraph on Freud is same paragraph that was deleted earlier from the introduction.
Needless to say, I think it should be removed. 
Ivan 06:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I just put it there out of deference to User:Jon Awbrey's views. Let's wait a few days to hear more sides of the argument before removing it, however. Semiconscious • talk 07:00, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I am for my part fine with having it removed.--Heida Maria 12:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest that if no one expresses disagreement within the next two days the section should be removed. --Heida Maria 00:12, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Background 

message: Some brief reference could be made here to Skinner and Radical Behaviourism, and include the point that this work led to more humane treatment of animals, particularly in Zoos. This is as punishment has been used less and less and positive reinforcement is used.
: Yes, this is a fine idea. However, can you reference that fact? --Heida Maria 11:30, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Study of animals in psychology

message: * JA: The use of pejorative terms like "unscientific" in reference to Freud's work as a whole is indicative of one POV with respect to Freud, one POV with respect to psychology, and one POV with respect to what constitutes science.  I recognize these three POV's.  I think that they deserve a voice.  I recognize also that they are not the only POV's on their respective subject matters.  I think that other POV's also deserve a voice.  I'm not sure that a generic hub article on Psychology is the place to negotiate the claims of these various voices, but neither is it the place to slant a very diverse field in one direction or the other.  NPOV does mean a denial of the fact that there are different POV's.  That would amount to misinforming the reader about the realities of the subject matter.  Jon Awbrey 18:40, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whether a person uses the scientific method or not is not a matter of opinion. It is not POV to say that Freud did not use the scientific method, because it is widely known that he did not use experiments to support his theories.Ivan 04:47, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV's on scientific method 

message: Hi! Do we need to link to both Portal:Psychology and Portal:Mind and Brain? I think it looks a little cluttered. I suggest removing the link to Portal:Mind and Brain, which is easily accessible from Portal:Psychology. /skagedal... 16:43, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would prefer if you just moved it further down, e.g. to the subsections about mind and brain.--Heida Maria 16:50, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, that is an excellent suggestion. /skagedal... 17:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links to portals 

message: Under "schools of thought", it read:
:Some psychologists may think of themselves as adherents to a particular school of thought and reject the others, although most consider each as an approach to understanding the mind, and not necessarily as mutually exclusive theories and Exerises.
I have no idea what was meant by "and Exerises", I'm guessing maybe "exercises"?  But does that make sense?  So I removed it. Please fix if you disagree... /skagedal... 17:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "and Exerises" 

message: Hi all! I just started Wikipedia:WikiProject Psychology. I hope some of you will join in and discuss what needs to be done in this area. /skagedal... 16:14, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject Psychology 

message: I have been working on the forgiveness article.  The section on "Psychological theories about forgiveness" in that article needs work.  Any help would be appreciated.  Thanks.  --speet 13:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi RSpeeter.  I have come across some studies on this a few years ago.  I'll take a look.  Ksinpoint 04:10, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Forgiveness theories in Psychology 

message: Will anyone complain if I replace the list of psychology societies with a link to http://www.dmoz.org/Science/Social_Sciences/Psychology/Associations/ ? These links are not in keeping with the policy Wikipedia is not a repository of links --  Barrylb 23:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't complain. --Heida Maria 14:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

text: My main corcern is I don't know the degree of systemic bias that web site has.  Perhaps one safeguard for what's here would be to double-check if something is not there and nominate it for inclusion if it isn't.  Another suggestion is to add a commented note under the External links section with a suggestion to check for the link at the other site and nominate it there, if needed. Rfrisbietalk 14:39, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that these links should be removed, but instead of a dmoz link, maybe a List of psychology organizations (including psychology societies) would be in order? /skagedal... 19:17, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I did so, and added a link to dmoz.org/Science/Social_Sciences/Psychology/ among the links. /skagedal... 21:52, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Psychology Societies External links 

message: The section entitled "history" attributes the invention of the word "psychology" to Goclenius (accompanied by his image on right). However, there is no citing information for this claim. Academically, there are competing claims as to who was the first to use "psychology". One claim is that is the german Melanchthon (1497-1560). It is also unclear as to whether the significance should be on the coining of the term or its first use in the "literature". Either way, there is enough information to 1) include Melancthon alongside Goclenious or 2) downplay the strong claim re: goclenius. Please discuss ( i have not made any changes...)Platypusjones 16:52, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  history of the term "psychology" 

message: Is psychology a natural or a social science? --Arado 10:45, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is typically thought of as a social science. Some people consider it part of a more specific category; the behavioral sciences. At universities, however, psychology departments are usually grouped (for administrative purposes) with other departments, and these groupings can differ. Most schools group psychology with other social sciences (sociology, political science, etc); however, other schools may group psychology with natural sciences or even with the humanities. Psychology is such a broad area that some areas (e.g. clinical, developmental, social) seem much more "social science-y" while other areas (physiological, behavioral neuroscience) seem more like a natural science. -Nicktalk 18:57, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: an interesting question. i would agree to an extent with Nick that it is a social science, but that classification is also a little more complex. it is a social science that is primarily based on what are considered to be natural scientific principles: objective measurement, standardization, explanation, prediction and control. in sum, the mainstream view since wundt and james in the late 19th century was that people could be studied the way physical phenomena are studied by the "hard" sciences (physics, astronomy, biology). conversely, some psychologists argue that the natural scientific paradigm is insufficient to meet the needs of beings as unique as humans. this argument does not make psychology any less a "social" science, but some psychologists maintain different methods (e.g. qualitative instead of quantitative) should be used.Platypusjones 16:51, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Natural science 

message: I tried to find an article on "parent tapes" but wasn't able to locate one.  I asked in IRC and someone said to post here to find out where to add it.  I started writing a completely new article but I guess adding onto an existing, related article is considered proper.Lone wanderer 06:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parent Tapes 

message: Hello all. Please help us update the psychology portal :) I have recently changed the selected psychologist, and added a few other things, but more needs to be done. --Heida Maria 20:22, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Help maintain the psychology portal

message: Why does NLP - neurolinguistic programming not get a good mention.  Its clearly the most advanced form of psychology in the 21st century. The methods used can cure in a single session.  That's gotta be about 100 times better than the other previous moneygrabbing therapies. Mindstore 03:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not psychology and most psychologists believe NLP is a pseudoscience. So please don't include it in the article, it would be embarassing. --Heida Maria 11:51, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Basically the whole NLP article says that its heavily disputed and that most people believe it's a pseudoscience. The articles in no way shows that NLP is supported by 'a very large number of psychology bodies". Sparkleyone 06:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The NLP article's been skewed by known (blocked) vandals and is unhelpful. None the less, even when repaired, the accolades being added to it under this article are incorrect too, being excessively exaggerated. Hope that clarifies. Hence I as well as other editors have removed them regardless. FT2 (Talk | email) 09:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NLP is the most advanced, so why is it left out?

message: Hello. Here's a suggestion that can sort out the pseudoscience static. There is a growing awareness of the practitioner research gap . I added part of this criticism and its solution in the article. It relates to many other parts of psychology and places the above issue in a proper light. I'm sure a lot of related articles can be adjusted based on this growing issue and its solutions. I'd say if it is kept to its own small paragraph and holds proper citations, then it should be easy to manage as a fact. Also, there are other related references you can see on the link, plus a core piece of literature (Science and pseudoscience in psychology Lilienfeld 2004). Psychologists are doing a lot now to raise awareness about pseudos pretending to be psychology. Plus undergrad psych courses are being designed in order to properly inform students of the issues. Savoylettuce 03:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Concerns of psychology researchers

message: Short of Applied Psychology, all the headings under the "Scope of Psychology" section name specific topics in psychology--i.e. "Biological basis of behavior", "Social interaction", etc.  However, for purposes uniformity and usefulness, I'd like to suggest that these titles be replaced with their respective subfields--i.e. "Biological Psychology" instead of "Biological basis of behavior", "Social Psychology" vs "Social interaction", etc., and maybe grouped under a heading titled "Research Psychology".  Any thoughts on this suggestion? –Prototime (talk • contribs) 02:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since it's been about a week and there's been no response, I've gone ahead and made these changes and also some other adjustments to the subfields. –Prototime (talk • contribs) 23:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Heading titles

message: Under "Related Areas" I'd like to suggest adding "Psychology of Women" or "Psychology of Gender." Comments? --Kirsten319 15:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That may work, but aren't those areas more of sub-areas of the field of psychology as opposed to related areas? –Prototime (talk • contribs) 19:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Prototime. --Heida Maria 20:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I've seen them grouped with psychology or with women's studies - I've seen both departments of psych and women's studies departments offering "Psych of Gender/Women" courses. I just wanted to throw it out there as a possibility for expansion and see what people thought. --Kirsten319 16:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is probably true, but what about just including gender studies as a related field? I think Psych of Gender/Women is to specific. --Heida Maria 16:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That works for me, too. --Kirsten319 18:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

text: That may be so, but just because an article doesn't appear in the List of psychology topics or :Category:Psychology as it stands now doesn't mean that it shouldn't be.  In the case of "Psychology of Gender" and the like, I'd most certainly argue that such a topic belongs in the List of psychology topics article and categorized under :Category:Psychology, and likewise those those amendments should be made.  "Psychology of Gender", etc. can then placed on this page accordingly. –Prototime (talk • contribs) 20:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My main point simply is content should determine placement. You can put a red link in a list but not in a category.  If some content already is out there on the topic, which I couldn't find, then that should determine where it goes in this article.  Rfrisbietalk 20:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, yes, I agree. –Prototime (talk • contribs) 02:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Related Areas