Talk:Humanistic psychology

message: The following quote is not to be found on page 3 of Maslow's "Toward a Psychology of Being," as it is referenced in footnote 13. And it does not even sound like his writing. Could someone please check this?
     Maslow then emphasized the necessity of a "third force" (even though he didn't use the term), saying that "it is as if Freud supplied us the sick half of psychology and we must now fill it out with the healthy half",[13] 
Pgm8693 (talk) 21:48, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Made up Quote? 

message: "The issues underlying the Humanistic Approach, and its differences from other approaches, are discussed more fully in the text, but the sources below provide useful supplementary information. One point worth noting: if you want to fully grasp the nature of the Humanistic Approach, you cannot consider it in abstract terms. Instead, you must consider if and how the ideas connect to your own experience[citation needed]--for that is how humanistic psychologists believe the meaning of behavior is derived."
This is copyrighted material taken from: http://www.mcgraw-hill.co.uk/openup/approach/huminist.htm  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clepine (talk • contribs) 20:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, the whole "Introduction to the Approach" section which was added in edits by 203.197.252.210 on 22 April 2008 is identical to William E Glassman's text, also on . On the assumption that the Tata user is not the original author, I'm going to delete the section. AllyD (talk) 19:48, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Plagiarized Material?

message: Humanistic psychologists certainly do not use all the methods described as qualitative. Trontonian 03:47, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: I added an article about qualitative psychological research and lnked to it. It's essentially a stub; I tried to be NPOV but it needs some contributions from people who are more involved in the topic than I. Trontonian 03:18, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Examples of qualitative research are needed

message: I have done a re-edit of the article, including the establishment of three main headlines. The article still needs a lot of work; more academic reference material, more elaboration of humanistic theory and epistemology. I hope to look into the matter soon. --Hawol 14:58, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Good work! I may have some time to dedicate to this as well. --Janice Rowe
I have slightly edited the opening, since it was originally too redundant with the 'conceptual origins' section. With the origins section, I've included a brief note about the strong influence of Eastern perspectives on contemporary humanistic psychology, with reference to the most up-to-date scholarly history, written by experts in the field. Wikipsyguy (talk) 02:52, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Re-edit

message: Humanistic psychology has been criticized for promoting an optimistic but often vague view of the mind....
A valid point indeed, but a reference would be nice. Also, this problem is discussed by Humanistic Psychologists. See Rowan (2001) Chapter 2: Humanistic Psychology is and is not optimistic.
--Hawol 10:48, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Optimistic view

message: Also, Gestalt psychologists claim to consider behaviour holistically — "the whole is greater than the sum of its parts" — although critics such as Karl Popper have presented arguments against the proposition that entities can be apprehended as wholes.
I have removed the following contribution because of source-critical reasons. I believe both the Gestalt position and the Popperian critique would benefit from the localization of these positions within a published academic work. That is, we need references for these statements.
--Hawol 14:17, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Holism, Gestalt psychology and Popperian criitique

message: Psychoanalytic critics have argued that because of humanistic psychology's emphasis on wholeness and optimism, it has downplayed the more tragic and painful dimensions of life, such as emotional conflict.
This is a valid criticism, but it would be nice to know who these critics are. Please give
references. Other than that I have no objections. --Hawol 13:36, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent contribution in need of references

message: It is not entirely true that humanistic psychology is against quantitative research. Viktor Frankl and Carl Rogers did some. The difference is how they used it and how they conceived it.
:I'd venture to say it's entirely false! Who can object to discoveries verified by the scientific method? Nor do they oppose the "first and second forces," though standing apart from them. In fact, they explicitly approve of them. What distinguishes the humanists is that they venture beyond what is known from lab experiments (and what is postulated and published in the case studies of psychoanalysts) into unproven areas amenable only to statistical analysis of the results of their efforts ("quantitative research"), a slow, but potentially rewarding, approach. It's like trying to evaluate a very small college by polling its graduates later on in life -- when the main criterion is whether they feel they've benefited from the experience. Unfree (talk) 23:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Humanism vs quantitative research? 

message: "Although much of Humanistic psychology tends to have a positive outlook on life and human nature, as reflected in the works of May and Maslow, the discipline is not exclusively optimistic. It also includes such thinkers as Schneider, May, and Bugental, who are not particularly optimistic (Rowan, 2001)."
This part seems self-contradictory... Where do we place May? /skagedal... 17:18, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for pointing this out. The other theorist with a positive bent should of course be Rogers, not May. The mistake has been corrected. --Hawol 11:02, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rollo May: positive or not? 

message: * Schneider, K.J., Bugental, J.F.T., & Pierson, J.F. (Eds.) (2002). The handbook of humanistic psychology: Leading edges in theory, research, and practice. Sage. ISBN: 0761927824
This reference is highly relevant to the article but I have removed since it is not featured in the article text. For the sake of clarity, and order, I believe that a reference should be featured in the actual body of the text before it gets listed under references. --Hawol 11:19, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok. My fault -- I mistook the references for a bibliography.
I disagree with you, Hawol, about whether references ought to be "featured" in order to be useful and appropriate for inclusion.  I can understand a desire to demand relevance to the topic, and perhaps mention, citation, or even discussion, within the body, but to require each reference to be given the prominence and treatment implied by "featured" would make articles excessively verbose, and references unnecessarily few.  They take up less space than discussion and provide valuable resources for people who are inclined to investigate further. Unfree (talk) 20:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The handbook of humanistic psychology. Reference not cited in text

message: I notice that some of the references being used are secondary sources (e.g. Rowan). While not problematic, why not use primary sources first and supplement with secondary? Just asking...
: It's a relevant question indeed. It would have been preferable to build the text around primary sources, as you suggest. The reason why I have chosen secondary sources is because these sources often give a good introduction to the field. One can get a good overview of the field from these sources, but they are no substitute for primary sources, I agree. They were mainly chosen for the sake of getting the article up and running. --Hawol 19:35, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources/References 

message: I have removed Rowan as a reference for now and I have plans to subsitute the material from the Rowan book with more primary
source material. Also, the criticisms of Roy Wallis and Leonard Geller are taken from Rowans book. I hope to re-introduce these criticism as soon as I can establish the primary sources which they are taken from. --Hawol 09:02, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent edit

message: I think Wilhem Reich should be mentioned as a predecessor, he believed in an essentially 'good' core to the human psyche, opposed to Freud, and his work has influenced a number of humanistic psychologists.
Stroll 09:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: W. Reich

message: I could have sworn that Psychoanalysis was considered to be First Force (though i heard it called "Wave) and Behaviorism was Second Force. According to this page, its the reverse.
::this is true.  The reason for the ordinal ranking is that the 2nd and 3rd forces were reactions to the the previous force. Psychoanalysis inspired lots of behavior research showing how we behave in a mechanical sort of way, while the humanistic approach reacted behaviorism by pointing out how we are humans, not machines. see http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=3rd+force+of+psychology   Briholt (talk) 05:25, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope.  See the association's whatis page. Unfree (talk) 22:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  First Force? 

message: This section is in serious need of editing by someone who knows the history.  It's pretty poorly written and goes into the wrong details.  The long list of names in the first paragraph is of no use, because none of them are tied to theoretical frameworks.  No need for so much on the history of behaviorism.  Simply explain how humanistic psychology is a response to behaviorist psychology.  I'd do the editing myself but my knowledge of the history is all from Wikipedia to begin with. Dwinetsk 20:45, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One reason so many names are associated with humanistic psychology is that unlike earlier schools of psychology, it began not so much as the following of a founder and his theories, but as the result of many individuals and small groups suddenly finding each other, and that despite the diversity of their ideas, they shared similar hopes and objections.  It was their coming together over a common disappointment in behaviorism and psychoanalysis which led to a theoretical framework, rather than the other way around.  Unfree (talk) 22:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The development of the field

message: Would somebody who knows how to do it please provide "external links" to the AHP's website (http://www.ahpweb.org) and its "whatis" page (http://www.ahpweb.org/aboutahp/whatis.html)? Unfree (talk) 19:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And your edits were promptly reverted by a bot because you included a blogspot link. For future reference, blogs aren't usually allowable as external links. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 13:23, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Petition for external links

message: The following includes assertions based on subjective opinion, hasty generalizations, and biased language:
"Criticisms that humanistic psychology lacks an “empirical base” have tended to rely on allegedly "restricted views" of what constitutes “empirical,” an uncritical adoption of natural science methods (as opposed to human science methods), and an outright neglect of Rogers’ own empirical work [17]. To the contrary, humanistic psychology has a long history of empirical research [18], including but not limited to the work of Maslow, Amedeo Giorgi and David Elkins [19]. In fact, humanistic psychology research traces its origins all the way back to American psychology pioneer William James’ masterpiece, “Varieties of Religious Experience”[18]"  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.235.86.139 (talk) 04:31, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV dispute - Criticism 

message: It would be helpful if there was information about the current status of the field. I have the impression that humanistic psychology is in something of a decline or at least is somewhat neglected, although I don't have any references to support this. I also have the impression that some people consider positive psychology to be something of a successor to this field, and certainly the conceptual similarities between the two would seem worth mentioning.--Smcg8374 (talk) 09:46, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current status and/or influence on modern methods 

message: I re-added the context to the lede because this removal of the historical context in order to add the historical roots (heritage) was unwarranted. There should be place for both the heritage and context. Both of them are important. --DancingPhilosopher my talk 09:13, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Historical roots (heritage) and/or historical context

message: One book that speaks out against humanistic psychology is "Is there intelligent life on earth?" by Jack Catran. Maybe a section to list literature.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.185.173.222 (talk) 20:55, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Work that refutes humanistic psychology?

message: Hans-Werner Gessmann may be a humanistic psychologist but I have not seen his name mentioned by observers of the subject as a seminal figure. I believe the paragraph looks like its promotional especially as he's a living practicing figure and the citations listed are all authored by him. I am removing. Lumos3 (talk) 11:01, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hans-Werner Gessmann 

message: I find this section objectionable, for the following reasons:
1. While it makes several contestable statements, it cites no sources (references).  Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a blog; reputable secondary sources are required for all contestable statements.  In the text, I have indicated where two references might usefully go.  (The second reference should be to an authority who claims that Eric Berne's evolution illustrates the evolution the writer is referring to.)
2. Am I the only person who finds the third sentence insufficiently clear?
3. Although Eric Berne is treated as a paradigmatic humanistic psychologist, I find his work to be much closer to psychiatry than to humanistic psychology as defined by this article.
4. The reference to Berne's work and humanistic pych im general from the 60s and 70s as "humanistic pop psycholog[y]" reveals the writer's negative attitude to HP.  Articles in Wikipedia are not supposed to reflect POV (point of view).
5. The "pop psychology" accusation is esp. unfair in Berne's case as his popular book on TA, Games People Play, was preceded by papers and at least one book on TA for psychiatric professionals.  Are other schools of psychology to be labeled as "pop" because some of their champions (Skinner, Freud, Ellis et al.) wrote some of their books for lay audiences?
I am not a psychiatrist or psychologist, so I do not feel comfortable altering this section.  But I do hope others of you - sorry, others of us - will try to make it better. - Babel41 (talk) 03:35, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Another objection to this section as it stands: 6. Although a historical-materialist interpretation of the rise of humanistic psychology after WW II (such as we have here) gets at part of the truth, other "practical" interpretations have also been offered and should also be mentioned.  My memory of the literature is rusty, but I believe Walter Truett Anderson's book about the rise of Esalen, The Upstart Spring, includes a more multi-faceted interpretation of the rise of h.p. - Babel41 (talk) 23:46, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Objections to "Practical origins" section

message: Maslow, in his book Motivation & Personality, actively disapproved of viewing needs as hierarchical; thus, a "hierarchy of needs" is the anti-thesis of what he taught. I hope that this image is taken down, and replaced by one where his views are respected (i.e. viewed needs as the essence of life itself, and a right in and of itself; non-hierarchical and all essentially important in their own right). Mr Robot 2020 (talk) Mr Robot 2020 (talk) 18:31, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleting Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs 

message: When I saw this article, I was shocked because there was more false information than I was expecting. Although I'm not able to audit the whole article, I can at least revise a small part of it to make it better.
Quote from this wikipedia article, citing https://www.acadiahealthcare.com/programming-treatment/
"Humanistic psychology aims to help the client gain the belief that all people are inherently good. It adopts a holistic approach to human existence and pays special attention to such phenomena as creativity, free will, and positive human potential. It encourages viewing ourselves as a "whole person" greater than the sum of our parts and encourages self exploration rather than the study of behavior in other people."
The source links to a healthcare organization trying to sell their product. Here's a better one, found by searching for "humanistic psychology" in google scholar and clicking on the first result: https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1972-09954-001
Quote from https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1972-09954-001
"The following elements of humanistic psychology are identified and briefly discussed: (a) the study and understanding of the person as a whole, (b) the need to understand the full life history of the human being, (c) the role of intentionality in human existence, and (d) the importance of the end goal of life for the healthy person. The individual is seen as attempting to integrate the various motives that drive the person to seek self-realization and fulfillment."
I'm sure the person who originally wrote that is well intended. However, they relied upon a bad source and didn't quite hit the mark. In this case, random health care organizations written by unknown people looking to sell their products is not a good source. On the contrary, scientific publications are a good source.
I think this whole article should have its sources audited.
EDIT: I made changes to the article that are live
Johnrobmiller (talk) 14:26, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  The definition and core feature of humanism is wildly incorrect, use of a bad secondary source 

message: The main article is flagged 'Neutrality of this article is disputed.. November 2019.. see the Talk page.
None of the topics on the talk page provide adequate discussions of neutrality.
The NPOV dispute - Criticism topic is from 2010, and only criticizes lack of 'empirical base'.  Empirical no longer appears in the article.  The section 'Orientation to scientific research' now discusses this aspect.
The Evaluating the Article topic from 2019 - severely lacks punctuation (or signature), criticizes the lack of negative balance, but seems to conclude 'provides a relatively neutral outlook'. So again no significant NPOV issues.
The article has many deficiencies and is too verbose/repetitive to rate as 'encyclopedic'.  B-Class is definitely appropriate.  However I don't see why the lack of extended balance should merit the NPOV flag on the main page. 
If there are no objections (here), after sufficient time, the main page NPOV flag can be removed.
LarryLACa (talk) 23:21, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality dispute 2019 - Removal