Talk:Dysrationalia

Psychology Low‑importance

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Education Low‑importance

	Education portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of education and education-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EducationWikipedia:WikiProject EducationTemplate:WikiProject Educationeducation articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Expand Article

This article could be improved with examples of behaviour that could be categorized as "disrational" as well as discussion of this concept's status today (since sources cited are from early 90s). The codition dysrationalia is clearly explained as part of ADHD. It is part of the immaturity of the left hemisphere just as Dyslexia and Dyscalcuie. It also responds to stimulant medication. Roger Sperry's nobel prize slit brain research explains it very clearly just as it does the whole of the ADHD spectrum. Dr.Billy Levin ----—Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.247.100.118 (talk) 05:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Intelligence citations bibliography for articles related to human intelligence

This is a helpful article that cites some important research literature. You may find it helpful while reading or editing articles to look at a bibliography of Intelligence Citations, posted for the use of all Wikipedians who have occasion to edit articles on human intelligence and related issues. I happen to have circulating access to a huge academic research library at a university with an active research program in these issues (and to another library that is one of the ten largest public library systems in the United States) and have been researching these issues since 1989. You are welcome to use these citations for your own research. You can help other Wikipedians by suggesting new sources through comments on that page. It will be extremely helpful for articles on human intelligence to edit them according to the Wikipedia standards for reliable sources for medicine-related articles, as it is important to get these issues as well verified as possible. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 21:56, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Useful sources for updating this and related articles

I see this article was just tagged, correctly, for relying on just one source, so here are some more sources.

Stanovich, Keith (2009). What Intelligence Tests Miss: The Psychology of Rational Thought. New Haven (CT): Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-12385-2. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |laydate= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |laysummary= ignored (help)
Preiss, David D.; Sternberg, Robert J., eds. (2010). Innovations in Educational Psychology: Perspectives on Learning, Teaching, and Human Development. New York: Springer Publishing. ISBN 978-0-8261-2162-2. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |laydate= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |laysummary= ignored (help)
Stanovich, Keith (2011). Rationality and the Reflective Mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-534114-0. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |laysummary= and |laydate= (help)

Enjoy. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 03:45, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notes on formatting and reference fixes that I’ve just made

On Dec 20 2013 an unlogged editor from George Fox University removed almost all references from the article and also rewrote some paragraphs so that they became in-congruent with what the original passages (and the provided references for them) were saying. I tried to fix them, but just in case I added some new inaccuracies myself, please recheck the article if you are familiar with the referenced books and publications. DaemonDice (talk) 10:38, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clean-up. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 21:46, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV issues

This article treats "dysrationalia" as though it were a valid concept, even though it is one that (so far as I can tell from the article) has only been used by a few psychologists, and has not been generally accepted by expert consensus. A Google search for "dysrationalia" turns up fewer than ten thousand pages, so it does not seem to be a commonly used concept.

The entire concept appears to be highly political: someone may be said to have "dysrationalia" if one of the handful of psychologists who uses the term deems that that person's views are irrational. This is a dangerous kind of medicalisation: if you have opinions that these psychologists think are irrational, you have a learning disability -- or possibly a thinking disorder. Either way, there's something wrong with you.

The article actually acknowledges this problem, to some extent: "Sternberg also notes that the concept has the potential for misuse, as one may label another as dysrational simply because he or she does not agree with the other person's view." However, in spite of this, and in spite of the lack of expert consensus, the article persists in treating "dysrationalia" as if it were a real psychological disorder.

If "dysrationalia" is considered a notable subject at all, then the article on it should make clear that the concept is one proposed by a few psychologists, and not a generally accepted concept. Sentences like "Like other learning disabilities, borderline cases of dysrationalia may be difficult to classify" should be deleted, as they imply that "dysrationalia" is a real learning disability. That is not NPOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.29.244.164 (talk) 2015-02-01T22:36:04‎

Regarding the NPOV questions raised by 78.29.244.164: The concept of dysrationalia is sufficiently notable, judging by the quantity of independent secondary sources that are easily found in Google Books and Google Scholar. Yes, the term is primarily used by Keith Stanovich, but it overlaps with other widely used concepts in the field of heuristics in judgment and decision-making and behavioral economics (see, for example, the bestselling book Predictably Irrational). I don't see how the concept of dysrationalia is any more "political" than the concept of rationality. The concept of dysrationalia is normative, certainly, just like a standardized test score (in fact, Stanovich and colleagues have created a Comprehensive Assessment of Rational Thinking that serves as a standardized measure of rationality); such normativity has uses and limitations. The claim that it is "a dangerous kind of medicalization" seems to be confusing educational psychology with clinical psychology; the concept of dysrationalia comes from the former field and not the latter. To clarify this, I added a sentence to the lead paragraph: "It is a concept in educational psychology and is not a clinical disorder." I agree that it would be good to add a summary of published criticisms of Stanovich's approach to rationality and dysrationality. Biogeographist (talk) 01:39, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]