Talk:Florence Littauer

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles

Christianity Low‑importance

	Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity 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.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Religion Low‑importance

	Religion portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women writers Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers 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.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: Massachusetts Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Massachusetts portal This article is supported by WikiProject Massachusetts.

Famous examples ??

I find it hard to accept that there can be "famous examples" of something that is at best subjective and at worst is pseudoscience. Some of these people are dead. Who makes these classifications?. Have any of the listed people self-identified as such?. Is there a test for these levels?.
I was tempted to remove the entire section on the different types as this article is about a person and not her system, but thought we should discuss here. Perhaps a different article for the system would be best, and let it stand up to scrutiny on its own.--Dmol (talk) 05:51, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would assume that the one making the classification is Littauer herself. Or else the article contains original research. Her system is actually presented here without any context, so I am not even certain which of her books is the intended source.

As for pseudoscience, pay less attention to the famous names and pay more attention to the vagueness of the descriptions. "They love interacting with others and play the role of the entertainer"

This could probably include any professional actor and singer. They live to entertain. This tells us very little about their personality and what kind of person they are. Littauer's system sounds as "useful" as the average astrologer's ramblings about human personality types. Dimadick (talk) 08:26, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

-as for famous examples, I would wonder if anyone commenting on this page has read her material. Once you have you would easily understand the specific criteria used, and how easy it would be to categorize certain individuals according to those simple and straight forwards guidelines.

-As far as pseudo-science and vague astrology type descriptions, I came to this page as a bunny trail from a few hours of researching peer reviewed academic psych articles on EBSCO. compared to phrases like "openness to experience" and "conscientiousness" (Big 5 personality), not to even mention some of the extremely abstract and vague titles of peer reviewed psychological studies published in Psych journals, which also can apply to just about everyone when taken at the surface apart from reading the entire study or paper thoroughly to ascertain the author's meaning. This type of language and phrasing isn't that vague or ambiguous at all for the field personality theory and research. The field of Personality theory, for the simple reason that it studies something that can not be manipulated for experimentation (personalities) is universally considered pseudo-science, because you can't actually do "experiments" in the strictest sense on personality as you can't manipulate the independent Variable. That said, there are many who consider psychology itself Pseudo-science. Not only is that term vague and obtuse, but it is most often just used to describe anything not properly referenced, universally agreed upon, or not "peer reviewed". "Peer review" itself is a necessary but far from perfect system. But without digressing further, I believe that since this work isn't asserted as scientific in the first place, but rather experience based, and since personality theory is a field of psychology that even it's practitioners refer to as "quasi-scientific" that a discussion about it's pseudo-science classification is a moot point.

-and, if you are interested in the field and not offended by occasional blatant religious references I recommend checking out Wired That Way (daughter Marita), or Personality Plus, both good reads giving an easy to understand presentation of her theory. Which is an adaptation of a very old theory based on observation and ridiculous not even pseudo science. So although her specific insights are beneficial, I imagine that is why she doesn't have a page for her theory. But one couldn't hurt — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:442:4000:C404:0:0:0:FDDD (talk) 23:27, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]