Talk:Self-help/Archive 1

Legal term?

Is not self help also a specific legal term, perhaps related to pro se (but I think more expansive)? If so that should be mentioned.Mike Linksvayer 00:23, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Done. The intro is now somewhat disjointed from the content, which could benefit from more information about the trend toward more expansive self-help services in recent times. Self-help certainly is a widely recognized concept beyond the "pscyhological nostrum." Leastos 06:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Representative samples

I trimmed the list of links and books, removing those that were apparently from non-notable sources, based in part on Alexa ratings. The article won't ever list every book and Web site because it is not a directory.Is there some way we can select representative samples -- aren't their leading authors who set landmarks in this subject? Maybe Norman Vincent Peale ? Leastos 07:03, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the Books section should be removed completely. It serves only to promote the most popular of self-help titles, and there is already a category of self-help books. Instead, I would recommend that a trends in self-help section be added, with short quotes and principals from notable books, and other self-help media, for illustration and reference. BreathingMeat 22:17, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree re: the Links. On what basis is "secretsynergy.com" on the list? It's a product-marketting site with no content. I've added StevePavlina.com because (a) it's the 3rd match in Google for "Personal Development" and has been around for years, (b) it makes a good example because it includes freely accessible articles on a wide variety of personal development topics. --irrevenant [ talk ] 00:41, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

External sites

Has any one here actually used or recommend any of the external sites listed? Most have been added by anons and unless someone objects I'm of mind to delete most of them.

Self-help and Free Antebellum Blacks

Perhaps a section on the self-help exhibited by free blacks living in Pre-Civil War America would be interesting.

Self-Help Organizations

This article seems almost completelly focused on modern individual self-help movements and processes, and ignores the enormous impact fraternal organizations had, particularly in the early 20th Century in the US. Unfortunately, I'm not qualified to address this void, or I would, but I think it definitely should be addressed. Septegram 19:14, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

On second thought, I'm just going to include a link to Mutual Aid Societies.

Never mind...

Septegram 19:24, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I also saw this fault with the page and added some references both to world wide studies and health self help groups. These are my experience so thats what I added.

Also I found the citation style mixed up. Italics or quotes for titles not both. Are we using footnotes or what is going on here? I use McGill Law style which is the Canadian legal studies standard but tried to adjust to what was here. Feel free to move this paragraph to a talk about citation styles section for this article. Pete 12:53, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

______________________________ I dont mean to bend this out of shape, and just my two cent's worth, the entire article is very confusing to read, jumps around a lot, doesnt have a lot of focus or substance, and gives the impression of a pop culture approach to the subject, which could be a part of the article, but certainly needs the entire other side, as well as a much broader and deeper viewpoint overall. I think of the sodalities and auxiliaries of churches of the poor and so many other ways of thinking about self help, including all the 'write away for' pamphlets during the 18th and 19th centuries, incliuding those for farmers and weavers et al. I think, though I am unqualified to write it, that a primary ethnologic overview would be useful.

As the article stands now, it makes it seem as though few persons exist in the world who are alone, poor, with no contacts, and in need. Frankly, it seems the majority of the world is in that condition. The value of self/peer/ mentor help is inestimable it would seem. Some would list the holy scriptures of Mormons, Qu'uran, Bible and Torah, the Gita, etc, as works of primary application in self help. For myself, I would say some of the phrases of Lorca hit the mark, and certainly the work of Alice Miller, for many hit the mark...that is, HELPFUL...giving a scrap of needed nourishment, or a drink of water while negotiating the rough road. I think it has to be said too, that an article about that spiritual kind of self help cannot quite be done without letting those who are/have been helped, speak also. I would just suggest that having the view from the ground notes would give the article gravity, which seems not present now.

re social self-help, I was just talking to some folks from SPLC and they tell of self-help booklets they have made availible to those of the poor who can read and can learn to file their own wills. The non-profit I work for gives out self help books in poor countries about how to build latrines and keep water clean. These comments are just my two cents worth. --Lacorona 08:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Has everyone given up on this article because it needs a lot of work? --[Debbyo] 04:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

"Those who experience a problem first hand have a certain type of knowledge that might be called folk knowledge [See the Sociology of Knowledge]. This idea is often not accepted knowledge by doctors or lawyers or other guarded professions."

There is a link to "knowledge" - shouldn't the link be to "folk knowledge"? And why are we directed to a field called "sociology of knowledge" in order to understand "folk knowledge"? The second sentence is biased: "other guarded professionals". What does guarded mean in this context? Too small minded to accept folk knowledge? This is clearly POV. Debbyo Debbyo 04:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Yup. DCDuring 10:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes sorry about the reference to "sociology of knowledge" that's not needed. And below the court reference is as some guessed about self help being done by non-experts. In this context some self help is free of charge. There is power in it costing nothing. Thanks for all of your discussions here about my awkward language. I think you are all helping it along.

--Pete 00:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The admission of sociological evidence at the Canadian Supreme Court is an example where knowledge is being taken from a wider array of sources

No citation on this as requested. Also, what does it mean and how does it relate to self-help? A wider array of sources than what? Shouldn't this go? Debbyo 04:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Let's try for sources first. DCDuring 10:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Likewise, self help knowledge, far from the so called expert knowledge of self help books alone, is perhaps best understood as speaking from experience rather than from book knowledge. Thus self help books are full of case studies of real people's stories of dealing with a problem.

I believe this is saying that the self-help philosophy is based more on personal experiences than empirical evidence. If it is, perhaps we should say so.

Also the reference to the so called expert knowledge of self help books seems to undermine the expertise of the self-help writers. I am sure this is not the intention.

I'm pretty sure that it was. The tone and word-choice betrays an NPOV problem. DCDuring 10:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Also (and this is a biggie), I'm wondering whether 'self-help' itself is not a weasel word or, the very least, terminology that is loaded and not quite as universally accepted as the enlightened way, as the article suggests. There are some views that see the self-help industry as just that. An industry - that makes millions out of people's misery. Some see the "self help" phenomena as a result of small-government ideology which leaves the mentally ill to "help themselves". Another criticism is that it it isn't about self help at all but about putting your faith into gurus.

Also, I have never heard anyone say I have "self-helped" so I wonder whether the word is only ever linked to words such as "industry" or "books or "films". On consideration, perhaps calling it an "industry" might be more accurate. The word, by itself, doesn't seem to exist.

Interesting. There might be some way to do a short article that referred to other articles for antecedents, examples, self-help groups, mutual-aid, the do-it-yourself impulse, other related phenomena. Then there could also be an article about the 'industry'. DCDuring 10:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Is there anyone else watching this article? If not, perhaps I will wait a few days and try to make it more NPOV. [[Debbyo}}Debbyo 05:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC) Unclear writing

"Those who experience a problem first hand have a certain type of knowledge that might be called folk knowledge". The subject of the sentence "those who experience a problem first hand" is really, everyone. So, is the intention of this sentence to say - everyone has folk knowledge? Perhaps the intention is to define "folk knowledge" as something everyone has. Or perhaps it is to say that folk knowledge is about solving problems through first-hand knowledge. The snipe at doctors and lawyers and other "guarded" types implies that the self-help philosophy/industry is outside the so-called "mainstream". That position may be true for some advice-givers but I think that inference may be overstated. Many doctors and lawyers have written self-help books. So have wealthy business people and religious leaders, not necessarily fringe dwellers in the oppressed sense. Some of these self-help gurus could be considered fringe-dwellers in the scientific or medical domains.

Anyone can write a self-help book, so surely this article needs to examine this phenomenon (which seems to have flourished since the late 20th century) with some objectivity. My earlier suggestion that the term itself may be a weasel word comes from my observation that it doesn't really say what it means. Buying books which tell you what to do is not obviously "self-help". That's why I suggest a name change to either "The self-help industry" or "the self-help philosophy".[Debbyo]Debbyo 06:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Meaning?

"'An expansion of the technologies that empower individuals to conduct both trivial and profound activities binds together the diverse genres which apply self-help concepts. Self-help book-publishing arose from decentralization of ideology, from a growth of publishing industries using expanded printing technologies and (at the pinnacle of growth) from the spread of new psychological sciences. Likewise, self-help legal services grew around expanded access to document-production technology (viz: the printing industry in the 18th century). The Internet, with the ever-expanding selection of commercial and information services which it offers, exemplifies movement toward self-help on a grand scale'.

This is full of weasel words and jargon. I'm a post-graduate and I don't get it. Take the first sentence. Does it mean that new technology spread the self-help philosophies. Well say, it. What does decentralization of ideology mean? It sounds like jargon. It should be explained in plain English so that the average person can understand. Also, what does "on a grand scale" mean? Where are the facts supporting its impact? Let the reader decide how grand the scale is? {debbyo}Debbyo 06:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

The term self-help can refer to any case or practice whereby an individual or a group attempts self-guided improvement. I would argue with this definition. It is not apparent to me that going to an advice-giver is necessarily an attempt at "self-guided" improvement. Perhaps the term is irredeemably weasel. Orwellian even. All self-help books(or videos)are based on following the advice of a "wiser" person. Not everyone accepts "self-help" as a neutral word. Its definition should reflect that.

What about, for starters: "Self-help" is the description applied to an industry(philosophy?)that promotes the use of first-hand experience and traditional folk knowledge to solve personal problems". Debbyo 07:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC) Debbyo

"According to the APA Dictionary of Psychology, potential benefits of self help groups that professionals may not be able to provide include friendship, emotional support, experiential knowledge, identity, meaningful roles, and a sense of belonging.[1] Any health condition can find a self help method or group such as parents of the mentally ill. But there are limits and these methods do not work for everyone. As well as experienced long time members sharing experiences with a similar practical problem such as finances of a health problem, these health groups can become lobby groups and educational material clearing houses. Those who help themselves by learning about health problems are helping themselves through self help. But self help in this context is often really peer-to-peer support."

Too many problems here. Firstly, it's 'self-help" not self help. And, how is group (or peer-to-peer) therapy related to self-help? Where is the self bit? And what does "group such parents of the mentally ill" mean? Is this the name of the group? And, also the assertion that any health condition can find a self-help group (besides the fact that conditions can't find self-help groups) seems to be overblown. And, most importantly, how is this all group therapy related to the self-help industry/philosophy?

The self-help industry is a notable industry. This article needs a major overhaul. Is anyone interested? [Debbyo]Debbyo 07:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm interested, but I think that we need to determine feasibility first. As to "self-help" meaning mutual help, that has to be at least referred to. Historically, there was some "mutual aid" phenomenon (The name Kropotkin pops into my head on that. And self-help support groups (live and on-line) are an important part of the phenomenon currently. DCDuring 10:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, DCDuring, you are right about that. This is not an area in which I have any expertise, but having looked into it a little further, you are right that the "mutual aid" characteristic of self help is important. So self help appears to be more about non-professional help i.e. people untrained in any particular recognized discipline sharing their experiences. I saw the following idea present in many articles about self help; "People in the community have also been found to use self-help interventions more commonly than professional treatments". The creator of this wiki article also mentions the "folk knowledge" thing. So this is clearly central to the meaning.

The results of googling tended to reinforce my earlier comment that "self-help" is used almost exclusively to describe a book, directory, guide etc. Wikipedia (this article) is one of the few that have "self-help" all on its own. So I think I see your point about notability. Popular yes. But I can't see how you can say much about the actual term other than it's about seeking help (or improvement) from non-professionals, who share their first-hand experiences. If there is a sociological (or other theory) explaining its growth or importance or whatever perhaps that would help. The current explanation, I don't understand.

Debbyo 00:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I've inserted some crude things about the pre-history of self help or the precursors of the self-help industry, depending on which way the article goes. At least I've got some sources. First Things First (FTF) has an extensive bibliography of the wisdom literature, but nothing "theoretical" about it. To me it seems obvious that the contemporary self-help is filling mostly the same needs as wisdom literature, proverbs, etc. I just hope that I can find some source that states the "obvious". I'm not sure that there is too much point to expanding the history much. What's there provides a chance for the reader to put the subject in perspective without trying to build some unsupported and probably unsupportable theory about it. DCDuring 00:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Another gem from FTF. BTW, their subject is time management. The cite a 300-page bibliography on academic works about time and, in their notes, say:

"It is interesting to note that, with rare exception, the time management literature does not reflect any connection with this huge body of knowledge."

I believe that much self help literature shares this characteristic, probably because most of the market doesn't ask for it. DCDuring 00:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Lack of appropriate sources

One problem with the article is that it is difficult to find articles or books about the subject that speak authoritatively and cover the whole phenomenon. SHAM and the McKee book areseem tenedentious and ahistorical. I am not sure if anyone has taken the trouble to think about the antecedents. If not, then it will be hard to do an article without doing Original Research, which is a no-no. I need to clarify exactly what that might mean, but I fear it will make it difficult to do an article. DCDuring 10:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Antecedents to self-help

There is something implausible is the ahistorical flavor of the article. Humans didn't suddenly need what the self-help section in bookstores have been offering since World War II. I draw your attention to the books of advice and exhortation of Arnold Bennett (fairly secular) and Orison Swett (inspirational) from the turn of the century. Poor Richard's Almanack is an example of the long-standing importance of proverbs. The Stoics wrote works that were full of psychological advice. I think someone has written on the connection between popular religion and self-help. I'm not sure how to determine exactly what is and what is not an important antecedent of self-help. DCDuring 10:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for that, DCDuring. A glance at google scholar didn't come up with much except a lot of articles evaluating self help programs. There was one book: "I'm Dysfunctional, You're Dysfunctional: The Recovery Movement and Other Self-help Fashions", W Kaminer (1992)which obviously critiques the modern movement. But you're right also that giving advice from personal experiences or personal inspirations is hardly a new thing - fables, proverbs,gurus are not new. The difference might be that in the past that was all there was - "folk knowledge". Modern medicine, psychology and published empirical studies did not exist. I'm wondering if the modern movement might be more about rejecting the authority of modern science ("doctors and ... other guarded people). And that is what makes the modern movement different from its historical antecedents. That seems also to be the position of the article as it stands. Perhaps that needs to be central to its definition. What do you think? Debbyo 01:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that science/academics has a limited role. You will note that the First Things First authors said that they didn't find much reference to apparently relevant academic literature in the time management literature. My readings tell me that time management authors don't waste a lot of ink and time on bibliographies of any kind. There is a portion of the self-help market that seems to like academic/scientific respectability and a huge portion that doesn't. Once authors win a following, they don't seem to need science or learning. I dread having to look through the academic literature of "sociocultural studies" or similar fields to find coverage of this. DCDuring 01:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I would point to John Stuart Mills and his book On Liberty influential on the founding of the USA. Because his thesis was by the government leaving people alone they would do "self help" and improve themselves with er cottage industry to put it one way.

--Pete 00:28, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Hyphens

The self-help phenomenon could be referred to as Self help. The hyphen is useful for the adjectival usage. Modern usage of hyphens is sloppy. We can fight the hyphen battle once there is a good prospect for an good article. DCDuring 10:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, as I mentioned earlier, I think the title is the problem. Self-help is an adjective (connected to the movement/industry ). The present definition: "can refer to any case or practice whereby an individual or a group attempts self-guided improvement" is a noun. So we must either drop the hyphen in the title - which means the article is about this very broad concept called self help which has been around forever. Or we keep the hyphen and perhaps add industry/movement. But this is even problematic. Is it a movement or an industry? Perhaps 2 articles? Debbyo 01:21, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Eventually, maybe, two articles. For now, one. It might be lonely otherwise. Anyway, we might just need a disambiguation page.

BTW, self-help is partially psychology and partially various other fields. For example, at WP, as in bookstores, time management is claimed by business. But there are also home-maker-oriented titles, as well as title for systems administrators, architects, lawyers, procrastinators, students, folks with ADHD. DCDuring 01:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I looked up "self-help" in some dictionaries and put what I found in Wiktionary. They include the hyphen in "self-help". I defer to the sources (Webster's 3rd Intl.). One less change. DCDuring 20:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Is Self-help notable?

Wikipedia:Notability discusses that criterion for including a subject. It's worth a read. DCDuring 10:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, it is not trivial and it is not going away. It is a major section in book stores, and there are self-help books at about every major retail location. And we have many self-help type articles already, such as about AA, NA, CoDA, Weight Watchers, smoking cessation, etc.--74.124.187.76 (talk) 17:00, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Self-help groups for mental health

There is an article on Self-help groups for mental health. Should it be linked from here? ----Action potential ^{t c} 07:10, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

You're probably right, but we've got bigger problems with this article. We do have a link to Support groups. Does that have a link to Self-help groups for mental health? DCDuring 20:10, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Exclusions

I think we have to exclude "mutual aid", "legal self-help", "self-education", "do-it-yourself". If we don't we'll end up with all of human action or all self-conscious human action as our subject. These seem like see also items or things that go into some distinctions section after the lead. DCDuring 20:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Revisiting the definition

Even after the exclusions, as I tried to edit this a bit, I noticed that I became very confused. I think it has to do with the very definition of the topic. It is a slightly vague social phenomenon. The most concrete manifestation of it is as the label that book publishers put on the back of books to help booksellers categorize and shelve books. I haven't looked very carefully at how librarians face the analogous problem. Because we need to be citing sources, it is not unreasonable to refer to the book classification problem to help us define what we're dealing with. Following are some aspects of my confusions. DCDuring 20:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Sources

I am collecting book titles that deal with self-help (SHAM, Self-Help Inc.) and with closely related areas of psychology (e.g., self-regulation, self-management). Amazon is great for entire books, but it can miss good chapters, especially in older books. I welcome suggestions. DCDuring 20:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Many older New Thought books and magazines would today be considered either religious or secular self-help or self-improvement books. Look for books that menion "success" and "will" in the title, for a good start. I too collect these books, particularly from before WWII. cat Catherineyronwode (talk) 04:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)