Jump to content

Talk:Psychology/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Still a stub?

I don't think this really qualifies as a stub anymore... but I'm scared of messing it up if I try to change it back to normal article. Can anyone alter it? Sparkleyone 08:35, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Top

Why was my edit taken out?Barbara Shack 15:23, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Social-Culture Psychology

Could someone give me wikilinks that discuss social-culture psychology? I believe it's a mixture of social psychology and cultural psychology. Values vs. area. --Cyberman 16:00, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Divisions of Psychology

The below category schemes were added by an anonymous Wikipedia user. They really are not very helpful--they're completely nonstandard and they make zero sense to me. --Larry Sanger

Divisions of Psychology - Scheme II


Divisions of Psychology - Scheme III

I especially like the inclusion of 'great peacemakers' as a division of psychology! Talk about a totalizing schema. --MichaelTinkler

Why not take the chance to make some brains working, maybe even literally? Thanks, Scheme III is from me, as a new Wikipedian I just haven't figured out how to sign in properly, yet. Simply add my name and then fill out the preferences? I'll try it out immediately. --Wolfgang Moecklin

This is a very interesting article but it does not pay enough attention to the split (at least in the US) between social and clinical psychologists (and perhaps other divisions within psychology). For example, although I find the first sentence very very interesting and a little provocative, I wonder whether all social psychologists would agree with it. Furthermore, it seems to me that many clinical psychologists and social and experimental psychologists have rather different notions of what "science" is, what would constitute a "scientific" method appropriate to psychology, and how "scientific" psychology ought to be. Thus, the paragraph on critiques ot psychology as a pseudoscience is way too incomplete and biased. It needs to distinguish between criticisms of "psychology" by non-psychologists, and criticisms of one branch of psychology by practicioners of another branch.

I hope someone can develop the discussion of different branches of psychology, at least in the US Academe, and can rewrite the first paragraph and the paragraph on criticisms to make them more nuanced, taking these internal divisions into account. -- SR

This needs incorporation into the article . Freud is basically totally discounted in modern academic psychology, whereas psychotherapy is still based, to a large extent, on ideas he developed. One interesting example of this is the arguments over repressed memories of childhood sexual abuse, enthusastically championed by "therapists" (who, to be fair, were not all actually qualified psychologists at all), and pooh-poohed by academics who rejected the whole notion of repression and did a whole bunch of studies demonstrating the unreliability of memory and the influence suggestions can have on people's recall. --Robert Merkel
Well, I agree that there should be some mention of Freud and a link to the Freud article. But I do not think Freud considered himself a "psychologist" and although many clinical psychologists have been strongly influenced by Freud, I don't think most of them would identify themselves a Freudians. So I don't think a lot of space should be dedicated to Freud or psychoanalysis. Still, there is a need to distinguish between social and clinical psychology and different forms of clinical [sychology such as psychodynamic, and cognitive-behaviorlaist, SR

This is in the article:

(N.B. There are many more approaches to psychology in existence today than listed above, and many more will likely be fashioned. The psychological dimension is now so well-established and universally acknowledged (in the industrialized world, at least) to pervade human experience that virtually an infinite number of terms might serve as adjectives before "psychology" to delineate new specialties or approaches in the field. Perhaps this Fill-in-the-Blank Psychology phenomenom suggests a dramatic expansion in psychology's scope towards an endpoint of total societal saturation, to be accompanied by a competition among specialties for authoritative predominance, or else an incurable fragmenting of psychology occasioned by the loss of concentrated focus within the discipline that concludes with a sea change in psychology's conception and particularly the emergence of a new paradigm of its essentials.)

Aside from being anti-psychology without a rebuttal from "psychologists" and thus not NPOV, I'm struggling to make much sense of it. Can anybody provide a translation into English, please, so I can figure out how to edit it appropriately? --Robert Merkel

Criticism of Psychology

Removed from the main article:

Additionally, psychology has been criticized for its dogged refusal to investigate the political, or ideological, dimension of the psyche. Since its beginnings, "mainstream" psychology has tended to be a function of the status quo, accepting without question whatever the dominant culture of the moment held to be "truth," "reality," and "normal" as the foundation of its "objective" study. Critics who perceive psychological and political significance in psychology's denial of the political argue that the discipline evades ideological subject matter - or more importantly, appears to evade it - by turning it into questions of scientific fact and individual well-being. Along with other modernist (Modernism) institutions, psychology encourages us to conceive of the world in terms of individual subjectivity on the one hand and scientific objectivity on the other, and thereby serves to blind us to the larger social structures such as discourses and ideologies that condition who we are.

Who are these anonymous "critics"? What evidence do they advance for their criticism? How do they know that psychologists don't study the mind as it relates to ideology? There *has* been research done in this area (one of my lecturers back at uni, for instance, did a paper relating the ideas of Piaget to the expressed ideologies of a sample of older children).

The paragraph can be saved, with some judicious editing, though, as with a lot of the critiques, I don't think it's appropriate to give over-prominence to dissenters to the status quo any more than ignoring them. --Robert Merkel

I agree with the removing of those two paragraphs above, even though I wrote the one ("There are many more approaches to psychology") and added material to the other. My intent was not to be anti-psychology, and at other places on the page I tried to tone down through editing the alternative perspectives on psychology that already existed. Still, in trying to accurately represent psychology, which I think has a lot of disunity and conflict naturally at its heart, I know that nevertheless I went overboard and just off-track for how this should described in an encyclopedia article. Certainly the proper route which I should have taken would be factual. To really accurately suggest the nature of psychology's importance to modern society, especially its role in all manner of conflict, a chronological history of what it has done over the last century (major changes or roles which are generally attributed to it) would be in order. Putting these changes into a time structure would be some guard against biased narratives composed of mere generalizations. There are a couple of web pages from the APA on psychology past and future that run along these lines that might help as solid material to shape the psychology article, which I'll also post on the entry page as they may be of use to those who come to Wikipedia.

[[1]] [[2]]

(The second one, giving predictions on psychology's future, does talk of a fragmentation and reshaping of it, but admittedly, in a much more coherent manner than I did. :-)

- Erika Schwibs

I attributed the "pseudo-science" claim to unnamed "critics". But what about the following passage, which is apparently someone's point of view?

These challenges to the discipline are, in large part, legitimate and needed, especially when one considers the discipline's growing influence in Western culture and how easy it can be to construct psychological models that are entirely untestable (e.g., Freud's model of the psyche). These concerns seek not to subvert psychology but to strengthen it by the same rigorous inquiry present in other sciences.

--Ed Poor

Definitions of psychology

I changed the first paragraph to bring it more in line with the usual contemporary definitions of psychology. Check any new intro psychology book for modern definitions. The broadest definitions never define it solely as an applied field. The definition i wrote is more common.

The article jumps around quite a bit, has much redundancy, and some minor NPOV problems. Perhaps I'll come back when i have some time again. Or maybe some other wikipedian will do the next round.

Arthur Jan 15, 2003 19:37 UTC

What was the reason for deleting, without any discussion, a large part of the article, specifically the list of related topics? There should at least be some bit of explanation here in the talk page, else it seems to qualify as vandalism. I'll restore it tomorrow if I don't see any explanation forthcoming. Grizzly 11:00 Feb 13, 2003 (UTC)

Hey yo, G! I wrote the bulk of first paragraph--and i can undersand the recent edit that removed quotation marks around definition of psychology! But I'd prefer that we segregate the definition from all else in artice. Anyone have a good idea? Arthur 04:15 Mar 19, 2003 (UTC)

Removed contents

In 1992, Professor Sammy Gouti introduced a new unique psychological theory to the field of Psychology, in general, and to the area of the Psychology of Relationships, in particular, with his brilliant discovery and the creation of "The Progressive Stage Model of Intimate Relationships", and with the introduction of new terminology to the science of love and intimacy. His psychological model has applications to all of human relationships, in general.

POV, self-aggrandizing material on idiosyncratic theories does not belong in the article so I moved it here. Angela 16:25, Sep 22, 2003 (UTC)

I took this out:

Few universities, journals, or researchers today treat psychology as a branch of philosophy, but there is much work which is not strictly experimental (such as survey research) conducted in psychology.

This looks like a non-sequitur to me, unless it means to imply that descriptive research should be categorized as philosophical, a belief which is highly debatable, to say the least. And survey research often tests null hypotheses. Trontonian 04:00, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Not sure why one particular graduate school (Saybrook) needs a link. Is it particularly famous in psychology circles? If so it should be important enough to mention in the article; if not then I think the link should be removed. Axlrosen 17:33, 22 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I don't see any reason it should be there. It's been added before, both times by User:67.92.237.158 with no reason given. I've removed it again. Angela

I think some sort of source needs to be given for the following, which I have removed for now. Without anything to back up, there is the danger it just sounds like a rant. The statements seem highly over-generalised to me. I also removed an external link that had nothing on the site other than an "under construction" notice. Angela. 23:23, Mar 5, 2004 (UTC)

A frequent complaint against psychologists and therapists is that they pressure vulnerable patients to agree with them when the therapists are wrong. Then they say something like, "My theory is true. I've proved it with my patients." Psychoanalysts of the schools of Freu] , Yung, and Adler all insisted they had proved their own theories through their patients. It is clear that the mutually contradictory theories of those different schools cannot all be true.
Between about 1975 and 1985 psychologists assumed that all women who complained about Sexual harassment must have been encouraging it intentionally. They never asked themselves, "Are we sure this is true?" They never asked themselves, "Just suppose this is not true, how much harm are we doing?" It will probably never be known how often expert psychologists manipulated women, (vulnerable due to harassment) into making false confessions. How much psychology is based on False premises?
even with citations, this would require a massive amount of NPOVing, along w the fact I've never heard any allegation of anything like this. Sam Spade 23:30, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

still needs work

much great work has been done on this article. however, it is still written in language that psychologists are comfortable with. please begin editing this article with readers in mind who don't know the lingo.

thanks, Kingturtle 04:38, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

NPOV

Added small sections to improve representation of not only the mainstream view but critical view as well. I hope that's all right with you, considering the prevalent aim in WP to represent neutrality.

-- Xernon 06.12.2004

Hi there Xernon,
I've removed your text for the time being as I think it needs a little discussion. Firstly, it is partly inaccurate and I think there's a bit of confusion between psychiatry and psychology. Psychology did not give rise to psychiatry (it originated from, and remains, part of the medical profession) - see ISBN 0192802666 for a brief historical overview. Secondly I know of little evidence for "modern psychology was widely embraced by the totalitarian states of the time" (although I'd be happy to see evidence to the contrary) particularly in reference to the later claim that it had the "direct aim of altering brain function first by physical means". - Vaughan 11:16, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hi Vaughan,

You are right, it is wrong to believe that psychiatry stems from psychology. I've been thinking hard what way I could contribute to this discussion and I must concede that I'm not in possession of sufficient resources to defend the views I tried to represent. The clues are all over the place, one only needs to look from a certain angle. But I know this is far from enough to warrant inclusion of claims like mine on the page. So I thank you for caring both about the accuracy of the information and about listening to other opinions but I do not wish to further my original intention to include critical views on the page at this time.

But just to clarify what I meant, let me give some explanation. I indend not to argue or change someone's views, only to clarify what I was referring to in my text.

Psychiatry's aim to alter brain function is always in the context of "curing" some "desease". Both the act of "curing" and the existence of mental "diseases" are disputed by notable representatives of both the profession and related fields like neurosurgery, etc. This is probably well represented in the anti-psychiatry page on WP. The example I mentioned about altering brain function was prefrontal lobotomy, where an icepick is inserted into the brain through an eye socket. In case you follow the link, note the phrase "and - voilà - a formerly difficult patient is now passive." Another example of physical brain alteration is electroconvulsive shock therapy, or ECT. Once psychiatry god hold of the idea that by phsycally or chemically manipulating the brain you can affect the person's behaviour, they have a hard time restraining themselves from doing it. This is what I was referring to as "direct aim to alter brain function."

The link between psychology and psychiatry is one of mutual reinforcement. Before Wundt's psychology, man had a soul and it was considered unethical to harm a human being, especially in need of help. Wundt declared that man had no soul. No soul, no continuity, no consequences of harm (we all rot eventually, anyway). What's left is a body with the brain as the centre of the nervous system. If a person had a soul, it would be enough to talk to them to change behaviour. If the person has no soul then even talking is just a matter of affecting how neurons connect or how chemicals are processed in the brain. Why not short-cut the whole thing, this unpredictable and risky business of talking, and go stratight to the core: the brain? Psychiatry applies force to override the patient's self-determination and often does harm to the patient without the ethical constraints of other fields of the medical profession.

Thus, clinical psychology justifies the coercive practices of psychiatry. Before this justification, psychiatry had to limit the application of its coercive practices to insane asylums where they had patients for whom there was already no hope anyway. Traditional psychology, the like promoted by St. Thomas Acquinas among others, would not tolerate the way psychiatry treats patients. Modern psychology fundamentally justifies the same treatment, even though on the surface it may appear to the contrary.

Thus there appears to be a link between modern psychology and modern psychiatry.

The totalitarian states I was referring to were that of Bismarck with his need for well conditioned solders for his wars, and that of Stalin (see Pavlov's works in conditioning dogs) who needed to control a large population that had a long history of resisting suppression. One could also mention the United States for its experiments on soldiers with Pain-Drug-Hypnosis, or PDH, but that probably sounds too far fetched. I think this issue does not need further elaboration.

I know this is a bit wild to have much credibility and I do not intend to defend my views, it's not worth the effort =)

-- Xernon 06.12.2004

Criticism

www.cchr.org

Psychology purports to use the "scientific method", yet, its foundation is based on unscientifically proven assumptions about the existence of human beings. It assumes human existence traits like: normality, well-functioning, well-behaving, deviance, disorder, dysfunctional, and many others. Although, these assumptions may seem reasonable, and be well-intentioned, they are not scientifically proven. And it is from these unscientific assumptions, that the entire field of psychology is constructed; it is a "science" built on unscientific assumptions.

Assumptions are never scientific nor unscientific, given that they are assumed and not proved. All sciences are based on some assumptions that may be more or less general. No science is 'true'. You may not agree on psychology's assumptions and that is fine. --pippo2001 02:07, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

There are scientific assumptions (the ones based on the "scientific method"), and unscientific ones. The assumptions made in psychology are arbitrary, and not based on the "scientific method" (unlike the assumptions made in those "other sciences"). This is problematic for psychology, because it purports to be a "science" which follows the "scientific method", yet, it fundamentally does not follow the "scientific method". Also, psychology does not acknowledge its assumptions. "Other sciences" will use terminology like "law" or "theory" to identify assumptive beliefs, psychology does not.

You may want to check scientific method and assumption. Then, please, give an example of a scientific assumption. --pippo2001 06:58, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

The "scientific method" is currently the best-known scientific way to ascertain the assumptive "truth" about a phenomena in the world. Conclusions derived from the "scientific method" are still assumptions about that phenomena, but they are "scientifically strong" assumptions. They may not be right, and there may be better methods to test for the "truth" of that phenomena. They are simply assumptions that have "passed" the best scientific "truth" testing that humans currently have.

Alternatively, there are "unscientific methods" to ascertain the "truth" of a phenomena in the world. These methods are equally valid. Some people believe that intuition is better, others may believe that guidance from a Deity is better, and still others may follow popular opinion as the best determinant of the "truth".

There is nothing wrong with either method. The problem is that psychology claims to be a "science", and follow the "scientific method". Yet, it doesn't uses the "scientific method" to ascertain the "truth" of its foundational assumptions (assumptions that are its "building blocks").

For example, it defines the word, "deviant", based on an assumption of how humans should behave and co-exist with other humans. This "behavioral assumption" is "made up" by using the the "unscientific method" of popular opinion; it is not founded on any scientific evidence.

Do we scientifically know how humans should behave and co-exist? Do we scientifically know what is well-behaving, and what is not well-behaving? Do scientifically know what is healthy, and what is dysfunctional? Do we scientifically know what is appropriate, and what is inappropriate? Do we scientifically know what is normal, and what is disordered? Do we scientifically know what is an illness or disease, and what is just different? Do we scientifically know what is proper, and what is improper? Do we scientifically know certain existential aspects of human beings like: personality formation, motivational causes, biological purpose, the "right" learning methodology, and the "right" human sensory experience .... ?

The "scientific method" ensures that the one's results are verifiable and reproducible. In the case, of the "deviant person" above, one would expect every person in the world who exhibits the same behavioral, and co-existence traits to be a "deviant" person. This is what it means to be reproducible. This is not the case. For example, famous people, religious leaders, and political leaders all have behavioral traits in common with people who are labeled "deviant", because they may also be avoidant of other people, and live secluded lives.

Psychology is founded on "popular opinion", and that kind of reasoning is not recognized as scientific.

You cannot fill the history of this page with your edits. You should thinks, write an edit, check it and more or less stay with it. Take care --pippo2001 20:57, 21 August 2005 (UTC)


Sorry. I didn't realize that the history was recorded. I was using a built-in spell-checker to my internet browser, and editing on page info. Sorry.

Much of this criticism is about the debate about the scientific validity of the social sciences or part of the biological sciences. As such, the debate really needs to be carried out on those pages. I think there are more subtle critiques of psychologica that can be put on these pages but that will have to come after a decent page is created, in the first place. Right now it is just a mess. So, stick around and maybe add something "positive" and then we will work on the "negative". And be sure to sign each addition to all pages. Thanks.Rsugden 18:48, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Criticism regarding Statistical Analysis and Assumptions of Normalcy

I disagree with the implication in the article that statistical analysis is a "soft" research method. Although statistics originated in the social sciences, it is currently used in all sciences inlcluding physics and biology. Statistics is simply mathematical analysis of probablility based on a normal distribution (bell-curve). It can be applied to any natural phenomenon that can be quantified. If the article is meant to indicate a criticism of overusing "statistical analysis of questionnaires" (i.e., the use of questionnaire/survey is a lesser method) then please say so. As it reads now, the article appears to be criticisng the use of statistics in general. If that's the case, all sciences have a problem.

With regard to statistics, this allows psychologists and other scientists to in fact make statments regarding what is (statistically speaking) normal - or perhaps it's better to say typical vs. atypical. These are not a moral or value judgments, just statements as to what is statistically more common and what is not. We never automatically equate atypical with undesireable. When we run across something uncommon or atypical - good or bad - it naturally begs the question: "Why?" Good psychology is founded on this type of critical thinking, not "popular opinion." In fact, as a psychologist, I spend a great deal of my time debunking poplular opinion. Don't confuse the self help and pop pyschology you see on Oprah as legitimate psychology. Those people annoy us as much as they do anyone. Any psychologist who goes around reifying popular opinion without first putting it to the test or at least citing existing research should and typically will be called down by his or her peers.

--- B. Boyd

Some statistical methods are more art than science. For example, factor analysis. The procedure for determining factors is scientific, but the naming of the factors is entirely subjective and based on the researcher's POV. Same goes for many other tests as determining the power required is also subjective. dr.alf 01:10, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Critical views of psychology and psychiatry

The DSM is created by the American Psychiatric Association and was created by a committee of psychiatrists. ECT is never administrered by psychologists and psychotropic drugs are the almost exclusive domain of psychiatrists and other medically trained doctors.

The criticisms in this section hardly apply to contemporary psychology (which is also largely critical of the things mentioned), therefore I propose this section be removed from this article and added to psychiatry.

- Vaughan 14:05, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

ECT : However, one of the world's leading ECT researcher is a psychologist, Harold Sackheim. I would like to look more into this psychiatry, psychology, DSM, various critiques of psychology and write on it. I am a psychologist at New York State Psychiatric Institute and have been doing historical research in these areas.

Rsugden 05:35, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Some of the world's leading combat researchers are psychologists, but I'm not sure that means this article is the place to criticise war or armed conflict either. It's not that I don't think these criticisms are important, just that they may be better placed in the most relevant articles.
- Vaughan 12:45, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Sorry I wasn't clearer. I did not mean to make an argument for the critique, but just wanted to cite a quick factoid. I agree with you. I am new at this and not sure how to communicate just yet.
Rsugden 21:59, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

History of psychology

I suggest that all the history of psychology that is present in this article is transferred to the new article "History of psychology" and only a short resumé is left here. Then the link to the article "History of psychology" can be put also on the list in the article "History of science". --Eleassar777 11:50, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Done. The article could use some editing, though. --Heida Maria 21:21, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Well done. --KYPark 04:08, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Psychology and Psychiatry

Can someone add some information discussing the relationship (and differences) between psychology and psychiatry? Thanks!

Difference is a sort of relationship. So your "relationship (and differences)" sounds somewhat awkward. Perhaps you may mean "difference and perhaps some other relationship." Being outside of psychiatry, I should say that psychology is psychology and psychiatry is psychiatry but both share psyche or mind rather than soul which suffers a very enigmatic (religious) connotation someone may not like. For further relationship, anyone could refer to psychology and psychiatry respectively, and know of, by, and for oneself. This would be the royal road, I guess. --KYPark 04:04, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  1. The ability of psychiatrists to prescribe medical treatments would be considered a major differences between the two. There is a brief discussion of the differences on the psychiatry page, if you are interested.

Definition of Psychology

THE SCIENCE OF BEHAVIOUR AND MENTAL PROCESSES

Nonymous-Raz

Hi there,

As mentioned in the article, psychology is not necessarily scientific, and some psychologists completely reject a scientific approach to the mind.

- Vaughan 07:37, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

"Anything goes." So said Feyerabend in Against Method (1975). But never be so proud even if no one even if not everyone laughes. --KYPark 09:46, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If that is so, then this article deserves the Pseudoscience category tag. --AI 00:42, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
A lot of people will give different accounts of this or that. But the general consesus amongs academics, practitioners and philosophers (of science) has been for a while that psychology is a science. dr.alf 01:19, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Psychology is based on scientific principles and is widely regarded by other scientists as a legitimate science. It is not a pseudoscience. --Cswrye 02:04, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Amendment of the Definition

I propose that the current definition of the word psychology ("Psychology (ancient Greek: psyche = soul and logos = word) is the study of behaviour, mind and thought"), be reworded to be more consise and better include the information presented in the same paragraph. The definition I would place is: "Psychology (ancient Greek: psyche = soul and logos = word) is the science of human and animal behaviour and mental processes. While behaviour includes topics such as social psychology and personality, mental processes include topics such as cognition and perception". This cuts down the needless introductory statement and the final sentance of the paragraph, and allows for an immediate clear and concise definition of the term.

To be more clear, here is the original paragraph, and below is my proposed amendment:

"Psychology (ancient Greek: psyche = soul and logos = word) is the study of behaviour, mind and thought. It is largely concerned with humans, although the behaviour and thought of animals is also studied; either as a subject in its own right (see animal cognition and ethology), or more controversially, as a way of gaining an insight into human psychology by means of comparison (see comparative psychology). Psychology is commonly defined as: "the science of behaviour and mental processes"."

"Psychology (ancient Greek: psyche = soul and logos = word) is the science of human and animal behaviour and mental processes. While behaviour includes topics such as social psychology and personality, mental processes include topics such as cognition and perception. Psychology is largely concerned with humans, although animals are also studied - either as a subject in its own right (see animal cognition and ethology), or more controversially, as a way of gaining an insight into human psychology by means of comparison (see comparative psychology)."

Just a thought :)


--Holyman9 30 June 2005 04:43 (UTC)

How about something like this:

Psychology (from ancient Greek ψῡχο = breath, life, soul + -ology) is commonly defined as the study of mind and behaviour. It is an academic and applied field involving the study of two critical relationships: 1) brain function and behaviour; 2) environment and behaviour. Frequently the application of such knowledge is to various spheres of human activity, including problems of individuals' daily lives and the treatment of mental illness. Psychology as a science is largely concerned with humans, although the behaviour and mental processes of animals is also an important part of psychological research, either as a subject in its own right (e.g. animal cognition and ethology), or somewhat more controversially, as a way of gaining an insight into human psychology by means of comparison (including comparative psychology) or via animal models of emotional and behavior systems as seen in neuroscience of psychology ( e.g., affective neuroscience and social neuroscience).

Rsugden 05:30, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Hi there,
I'm not sure the 2 relationships are the 'critical' aspects of modern psychology. The majority of psychologists never consider brain function, and 'environment and behaviour' seems to describe a behaviourist model which is has been largely eschewed for a cognitive approach. The additional details on animal work seems a little specific for the introductory paragraph, but would perhaps enhance the article's body text ?
- Vaughan 12:45, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Hi. Thanks for the comment. I actually just sent you an introduction email. Anyway, to your comments. The critical links comment is not to imply a behavioral bent (i.e., "behaviorist") but with cognitions being behaviors of the brain, in the broadest sense. As to the idea "that majority of psychologists never consider brain function," again I respectfully disagree. A clinical psychologist considers this each time there is a consultation by making a differntial diagnosis and is obliged to have that in the back of the mind thoughout treatment for the same reason. Anyway, I am speaking of the field of psychology as an overall discipline, not what a psychologist does.
But these are somewhat fine points. However, it would help me if I knew a little about your background, hence the email. Look forward to futher communications.
Rsugden 21:59, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

At the risk of of stepping on someone's toes, I am taking to heart Wikipedia's ubiquitous exhortations to be bold in editing. I see a lot of good ideas here, and a number of areas of agreement for changes, but the page still seems to reflect an earlier, inferior editing. [1] "ancient" seems better than "Classical"; if "Classical" was a decision made after everyone seemed to be in agreement on "ancient," there is no documentation of it. [2] The link to -ology seems quite helpful, and I think arguments can be made for the value of keeping both the "-ology" form and the original "logos" form. [3] I like Rsugden's placing of the word "mind" first and "behaviour" second, for three reasons. [a] Historically, psychology was at first more about studying the mind than about studying behaviour, thus the derivation of the word "psychology" which was just mentioned. [b] For the most part, mental processes are thought to precede behaviour rather than the other way around: this order would make more sense to the lay person. [c] The dominance of several decades ago of the emphasis on behaviour has given way to cognitive and information-processing approaches, which could be said to have achieved a degree of acendancy over behaviourist approaches. [4] Keeping the second sentence in some form (and I think it's fine as it is) seems appropriate, as it (in combination with the first sentence) acknowledges the major two spheres of what is known as "psychology" [5] "studying the mental processes and behaviour of individuals" seems more fundamental in characterizing psychology than is any discussion of psychology involving animals. (Most psychologists don't work with animals.) So that paragraph was moved down just one spot. My vote would be to move it down further. [6] Leaving out "mental processes" here and mention only behaviour would seem to give an incomplete picture. [7] The second to last sentence is redundant, and should have been removed already. The last sentence is misleading; psychology does, in part, attempt to study the mind using the scientific method. [8] The contrast with biology and neuroscience as I've rewritten it can be improved upon (especially by someone with more background in biology than myself), but the old version seemed quite lacking, so I thought I'd be bold in editing. [9] Rsugden's additions to the paragraph about animal psychology seem to add helpful clarifications. It seems to me, however, that this paragraph would be more appropriately placed in the 3 Scope of psychology section, perhaps between 3.3 Change over time: development and 3.4 Mental health. Comments? Thanks in advance for your patience with my boldness in going out on the editing limb! I apologize if I've offended anyone. -DoctorW 08:05, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

The applied psychology article

Greetings all. I noticed the applied psychology wikipage was pretty small. I am an enthusiast and information systems researcher with some interest in practical application of eclectic psychological theory. But I am not so knowledgable. I am interested in improving the applied psychology article (it looks neglected and forlorn). I think this would be a good place to ask for a suggested list of concise subjects. I believe it could be tricky though! And I feel it would be a good idea to start without pop psych rearing its flakey head. I very very uncommittedly propose; Intro, approaches, common applications, historical examples (eg mirrors in lifts), self help(tricky), Links. Any more suggestions? Regards HeadleyDown 11:14, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

I say go for it. You will have your job cut out for you as applied psychology is not actually a field, per se, but practical uses of psychological insights and findings. It can get very unwieldy if it stays so broad. Imagine, each main domain of psychology has applied areas. How do you plan to deal with that? Will you keep it more to I/O kind of stuff? Or will you state the openess of the categories and give some salient/fun applications?
As to the format, I have been thinking that the page needs to redisigned, made more compact and make use of the flat-database style of WP, i.e., have very short general section with links to each area with only a one or two line description. Then each domain article will begin with a summary paragraph that can serve as a concise entry and use the body to give full details. And if an area touched on lends itself to larger discussion (e.g., controverses in an area) that there be a link to that. This way we can give a good amount of space without having it go on for pages of computer screen. One of the frustrations of other encyclopedias is that if something is old, obscure, or contested there is only a cursory entry. What I think is better and perfect for what WP is about is that these areas can be given a full treatment because there are a lot us freaks who have passions where we know a lot about an obscure subject. What is the reaction to this? Rsugden 18:04, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Recategorization of areas of study

I have been working on a scheme to make the list of psychologists page more user friendly and informative, which has also made me think about the psychology info box with "areas" and "approaches". The "areas" are okay but minimal and I would like to amplify them. The "approaches" section isn't clear what that really means. It seems mostly psychotherapy approaches and/or theories of personality development, with a little from major areas of pscyhological study.

My idea is to have the info box have the following list:

  • applied
  • clinical
  • cognition
  • comparative
  • cultural
  • developmental
  • differential
  • educational
  • experimental
  • forensic
  • industrial
  • personality
  • physiological
  • social

The idea would be that all topics would fit under one of these major domains, so that cognition would have thinking, neurocognitive, neuroaffective, etc. Under clinical would go assessment and psychotherapy. Social psychology would have environmental psychology. Etc.

With 53 major divisions within the APA and some 440+ therapeutic programs, there is a danger that a more detailed list would get so big as to be inefficient. I hope I don't open a hornets nest with this issue but I thought I would throw it out there and see the reaction. If it is favorable, I will present some more organizing ideas. If I get overwhelming feedback to just let it be because it will cause too much debate, diluting our energies from writing articles, than I will live with it. (However, it will help me make the list of psychologists areas of speciality match with the psychology page, so I may come back with another proposal if this one is shot down!) Let me know what you think. Rsugden 21:09, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Psychology's relation to other fields

Psychology differs from sociology, anthropology, economics, and political
science, in part, by studying the behaviour of individuals (alone or
in groups) rather than the behaviour of the groups or aggregates themselves

Is the above statement, currently used in the article, concentrating the study of individuals vs. the study of groups truly sufficient to explain the differences between psychology and the various social sciences mentioned? For instance, isn't it true that economics is also concerned with the rational process behind the individual consumer's choices (for example), not exclusively with groups/aggregates? Likewise with anthropology--it certain studies the individual. Using the characterization currently given in the text as the primary point of differentiation may be problematic. ~ Dpr 03:11, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

  • It is a difficult question... Of course method of psychology is the main point, but the many branches of make this point a huge question. We cannot even say psychology study the mind of the individual... Behaviour of individuals seems not so bad... pyl 18:28, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Psychology and culture

See New Scientist, "Westerners and Easterners see the world differently". Something on that topic should be in Wikipedia - not sure exactly where. Rd232 14:12, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Before Making Significant Changes, Read This.

This page is currently in the process of being revamped. Before making any substantial changes, please discuss it here so that your time is not wasted. Right now on this page is little digested information and lots of idiosyncratic lists, not the best way to present an article ON psychotherapy not just asides to. Let's work together so that our ideas are the most productive. Thanks. Rsugden 01:44, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree that there are too many lists and too little text. However, please don't make the psychology page about psychotherapy. Psychotherapy is an application of psychology, not the field itself. A lot of psychologists have no interest in psychotherapy . --Heida Maria 17:11, 29 August 2005 (UTC) (P.S. Sorry I didn't answer your message, Rsugden)
Definite agreement. I myself am a neuropsychologist as well as a researcher (and a therapist) and a lover of the vast array of psychological science and as you can see from my proposed category list, the vast majority is about fields other than psychotherapy. Rsugden 18:36, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
So, what is the current status of this page? Is there a place where we can see a draft of the rewritten version? I would be interested in helping out with it. I think the organization of the Psychology page needs to be much improved and made to be more along the lines of some of the other science pages; the Biology page is a good example.--dzou 23:28, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
What about here? Psychology (rewrite)--Heida Maria 15:56, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
Excellent. I've duplicated the Pshchology page and starting making changes. Let's post any discussion specific to the rewrite at Talk:Psychology (rewrite).

What's the deals with the monkeys mother attachment experiment??

That experiment is unsourced, the conclusions to be drawn are not clear and this is not a main "Criticism of psychology" anyway. Here it is, moved from the article, incase anyone thinks that can be useful:

"The base of modern psychology involving attachment to their mothers is based solely on the comfort that they feel with them. When Harry Harlow experimented with the rhesus monkey's, nursing them on two types of mothers: 1) a wire mother, and 2) a cloth mother. While the monkey's with the cloth mother relied on that mother for both nourishment and comfort/safety, the monkey's that were nursed on the wire mother relied solely on them for nourishment and relied on the cloth for comfort. When feeling threatened or endangered, the monkey instantaneously clung to the cloth in hopes of finding comfort within it, for it is extremely similar to the touch of a mother monkey. This experiment shows the precedence and importance in which a monkey confides in his mother to ensure that the world around him is safe and that he is able to further out and venture and feel comfort within the new confines that he can now explore. Without that original feeling of safety and security, the monkey will constantly feel threatened by the surrounding world."

Jules LT 18:51, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Keep it out, its not a criticism, rather a demonstration of the secure-base hypothesis of attachment. dr.alf 00:01, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Replacing article with rewritten version

I've added a lot of content to the Psychology (rewrite) page and given the article (what I think) is an organized layout. I think I'll start replacing the article on the main page, but I would be interested in others thoughts on how the rewrite has been organized. More content, is, of course, welcome. --dzou 23:10, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

The content from the rewrite has been merged into the main article. Most of the original content is actually still there because a lot of it is really good, but it's organized differently. Hopefully, the new structure will work well. Comments? --dzou 18:22, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
I haven't had the time to read all of this yet, however it seems better organized. At least less lists is a good thing. However, I think it's a bit odd that there is so much text about forensic psychology, a couple of lines could suffice.--Heida Maria 20:15, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
Agreed. I left what was there before because it seemed like well-written content, but it is too long for the main psychology page. I've moved most of it to the Forensic psychology page, which didn't really have anything on it anyway. --dzou 22:06, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

On the Talk:Psychology (rewrite) page, dzou wrote:

I've replaced the content on the main page with the changes made here. From now on, please edit the main Psychology page instead of this one. --dzou 18:20, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

and on the main article page (Psychology (rewrite)), it says

This article is in the process of being merged into Psychology, and may be outdated. If necessary, please edit only the article mentioned above....

Since those statements were made, no visible improvements to that page have been made that have not been reflected on this main (Psychology) page, and additional extensive editing to this page have been done, so Psychology (rewrite) has fulfilled its purpose and has apparently outlived its usefulness. -DoctorW 05:46, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Psychology/Archive_1&oldid=1137103262"