Talk:Three Principles Psychology

NPOV?

This reads like a recruitment brochure for a cult or cult-like therapy. DCDuring 16:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Agree - the tone is like a puff piece. 24.16.174.161 (talk) 14:27, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

I'd like it to be more objective in its tone, all criticism is immediately rebuked

QuintenTitre (talk) 07:00, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

A neutral point of view (NPOV) neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject (or what reliable sources say about the subject), although this must sometimes be balanced against clarity. Present opinions and conflicting findings in a disinterested tone.

This is the goal of this page. Frances2023 (talk) 19:46, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Let's just edit

Rather than dump every article and reference in Wiki that discusses well-established principles of mental health treatment just because they are not Freudian or you don't agree with them. Health Realization is an accepted approach in psychotherapy. Banks, Pransky, Richard Carlson, Joseph Bailey and many others are well-read and well-respectede authors and practitioners in this area.

This article has all its information about Health Realization correct...it just needs a good editor to make the syntax more uniform to Wiki standards rather than throwing the baby out with the bath water. Bsteph1 04:45, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Where is this well-established other than in the minds of the authors (Mills, Banks, Pransky)? Where are the peer-reviewed articles by the authors? Where are the objective articles covering this? This is not yet suitable to be covered by an encyclopedia by WP's standards. If you can provide such sources, I will withdraw my complaints. But so far the article hasn't gotten better; it's just gotten longer. DCDuring 01:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I stand corrected. There is ONE peer-reviewed article that says that the results are as good as a 12-step program. ALL the rest is eye-wash. Pransky or Mills saying in a publication that wasn't peer-reviewed that they conducted a literature survey does not count for anything. DCDuring 01:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Working on it

As the main author of this article, I welcome these comments and I'm working on editing the description/explanation of HR for a more encyclopedia-style presentation.

The original article was easier to write using first person plural "we" frequently, but I can see how that gets to be too much, so I've changed to third person except where I couldn't figure out a way to do that comfortably. I've also added "according to HR" and similar changes in a few key places, to make it clear that the article is describing the views of HR rather than giving its own opinions on the topics covered. I believe this reduces whatever "recruitment brochure" quality the article might have. Let me know if you think I'm moving in the right direction. Also let me know of specific parts you find objectionable.

I did not write the section on Organizational Applications, and I'm afraid that part does sound like advertising at this point. I hope to do some editing there soon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RRWayne (talk • contribs) 00:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

More Working on it

I removed the tag for inappropriate use of first person after editing out all first person uses (I think) except one use in section 1.2, where I could use some suggestions as to how to phrase it otherwise without it sounding awkward.

I removed the tag for inappropriate tone after altering every instance I could discern. Please put the tag back in if you note additional problems, but I would appreciate it if you can cite specifics; otherwise I will remove the tag again (the tag does say that specifics should be noted on the talk page, and there are none cited here.)

I have also removed the tag for "written like an advertisement" given all the alterations I've made to make the tone more neutral. Again, please put the tag back in if you note additional problems, but please point out specifics so I can work on them. RRWayne

Original Research

The entire issue is just whether the material is presented encyclopedically. I don't have the slightest care as to whether it is true or false, effective or ineffective. Well, not entirely true, but basically true. The impartant thing is that it is presented with footnotes from reliable sources (peer-reviewed usually preferred). Wikipedia is already overrun with what read like solicitations from folks pushing their flavor of therapy. When I stumble across something like that I am particularly inclined to be demanding fairly strict compliance to WP standards. Any statement, except the most obvious, in the body of the page ought to be supportable from peer-reviewed journals, newpapers, magazines, etc. Take a look at the Wikipedia guidelines and policies, especially WP:NOT, WP:NPOV, and WP:Original Research. DCDuring 20:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi all, thanks for all your work on this article it has improved out of sight since i first read it in August 2007. Apart from the new references i've just uploaded to the article i'd like to draw attention to the following which i've seen referenced a lot, but have not actually read or seen myself. If it does exist it would go well into the community section of the article

Borg, Mark, The Impact of Training in the Health Realization/Community Empowerment Model on Affective States of Psychological Distress and Well-Being, Doctoral Dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction for the Ph.D. degree in Psychology, California School of Professional Psychology, Los Angeles, CA 1997.

jon marshall —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.184.175.92 (talk) 00:06, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Working on Original Research concern

Thanks, I've looked at the WP guidelines and policies. I will begin to set up a set of specific footnotes/ references to support the statements made in this article.

My main goal in writing this article was to provide an overview of HR, both contents and accomplishments, that people could find on the web. There is no single article like that about HR available on the web otherwise. I agree that the article should be neutral and objective, not a marketing tract.

I don't have good citations for the objections in the Objections to Health Realization section; so far as I'm aware, no one has criticized HR in *published* material, even on the web (except in e-mail list discussions). As a result I may need to remove this section, unless anyone can suggest another way to handle it that might still allow for consideration of the different view. RRWayne 22:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

NPOV

The difficulty that you seem to have is that you have cited no articles or books from what seem like "neutral" authors on the subject. As a result we have an exposition of the ideas, but no perspective on them. That means that you have position the whole thing as a great big hypothesis. Articles in what appear to an outsider to be respected peer-reviewed journals count for something, of course. I really wouldn't want you to invest time in taking the article down an unsustainable direction. There are some real tough characters who patrol and might really go to town on something that looks suspect. I'll try to make time to read the parts you've worked on the most. DCDuring 01:40, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

NPOV

Thanks for the warning. Of course the explanation of the model is not generally going to come from neutral authors; it sensibly should come from those who developed the model. The main place for "neutral" authors on the subject, I guess, will have to be the research section, which I will have to re-write extensively to bring in things like the reports of the outside evaluators of some of the community projects. However, there are now already certain "neutral" citations in the Community Applications section. I've been steadily working through the article but maybe I'll jump to the research section and expand that with references, so it will give the article a solid basis.RRWayne 04:39, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Speculation

Glancing through the massive and uncontested article on Zen, for comparison, I see no books or articles from authors neutral on the subject--except perhaps the historical accounts--or critical of Zen. (In all the years Zen has been around, surely someone has taken an objective look at Zen's philosophy and/or its social influence!) Yet I have no doubt that Zen is a perfectly legitimate subject and that the article is a perfectly legitimate one to have in an encyclopedia. The article ably answers the questions that most readers will turn to Wikipedia to answer, e.g. what is Zen? Who has espoused it? Where has its influence been felt? and so forth.RRWayne 14:41, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Work in progress

I've added a paragraph with a reference from outside the immediate HR world, on funding sources for HR community projects, which seems like one way to establish that HR is more than a fad or cult or flakey hypothesis. I'm continuing to work on references for the remainder of the article.RRWayne 14:41, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Completed most referencing

OK, I've put in about as many references as I'm currently capable of amassing. Although the great majority of them are from sources inside the HR world, there are some key citations to external sources which, I believe, establish some neutral perspective. I am removing the "original research tag," as I believe it no longer applies. Please let me know of specifics if you disagree. RRWayne 19:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Recommendation for objective criticism

I don't know much about writing or editing wikipedia articles, but it seems like you should not be using sources like Mills for your "Objections to Health Realization" section. I am assuming the purpose of those questions being brought in the first place were just so he could disprove them. I have come across this article reprinted from the Vancouver Sun which seems to include some criticisms from Bonnelle Strickling. This would seem like more objective source of criticism. Again as I mentioned before I am not an expert at any of this, but this seems to be more objective. Dvyjns 23:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that

That's the first such "outside" criticism I've seen in print. I will definitely include it in the article. If you spot any others, let me know. The whole reason I used Mills & Spittle for the source to the objections was that I have never seen any objections published anywhere, so I couldn't reference them. My dilemma then was either to not include any objections in the article at all, or to include them with Mills & Spittle as the source. Since the objections that Mills & Spittle cite are pretty much the same one's I've heard informally when I've discussed HR with people myself, I felt the list was pretty fair. Indeed, Strickland's criticism is actually related to the first objection cited by Mills, though it does take something of a different tack. But if the existing list comes across as biasing the article, I'm willing to remove it, and just put in Strickland's criticism. In any case, HR folks don't really spend much time arguing with critics. Instead, they are fond of "neutral listening" or "deep listening" and treating each person, including critics, with respect. RRWayne 00:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

A welcome bit of objectivity. Certainly not hostile. Now we could use someone to provide perspective by comparing Banks's approach to that of others. The article is useful background for a writer, but can't be included in the article because it would probably be a copyright violation. It can be used and cited. Maybe we can find a link to the newspaper's site. DCDuring 00:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Use the article, but it is not available from the newspaper's site. I am amazed that West Virginia U. allows the posting of scanned copyrighted material. We cannot assume that it will remain on that site. DCDuring 01:08, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

What I did

I cleaned up some things: spaces, italics, capitals. I removed duplicate items from further readings. There are still some items in there that don't belong. I removed most of the external links. Long external links lists attract even more external links of ever-increasing spamminess. This is an encyclopedia, not a website. Some of the links were duplicative of sites that had some material used in notes. I believe that only two studies demonstrate effectiveness (and not conclusively). I think effectiveness is vastly more important than the "objections".

What this doesn't really explain is why this approach is attractive to the institutions that are tryng it out. Is it cheaper? Is the weak evidence in favor of it better than other programs have? Is it simpler? Does it work with a larger portion of the population than other approaches?

I couldn't find anything on the link that supported the statements about all the evaluative research that has been done. That's why there is a cite check tag. This needs more objective evaluative references and neutral articles of any kind. This is written from the point of view of a potential participant rather than, say, a voter or government official trying to understand what good HR might do for their community. DCDuring 04:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Note on link cited

Apparently the actual Literature Review that CRC/HRI did is not on the CRC site. I am guessing that what they are referring to is actually the paper entitled The Understanding behind HR-Documented Outcomes: A Principle Based Psychology -- Summary of Clinical, Prevention and Community Empowerment Applications -- Documented Outcomes 10/01/02, by Roger C. Mills, Ph.D., which is offered for purchase on the HRI site at http://www.healthrealization.com/hri/Resources.shtml#papers. (This page, until just recently, used to be accessible directly from the CSC site). I will see if I can get clarification from them on whether this is indeed the literature review they are talking about. RRWayne 14:31, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

If it isn't published in a peer-reviewed journal it's not that great. If it's been rejected, that's bad. The fact that it's for sale only from their site is not too encouraging. It is then self-published and not considered a reliable source. DCDuring 03:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Turns out the dead link was to an old review that they removed from the site because it was out of date. It isn't the paper currently on the HRI site. So I'll keep any reference to it out of this article. RRWayne 20:38, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks and note on Refimprove tag

Thanks for the clean up. I have no problem with removing most of the external links.

I share your desire to see more evidence of the effectiveness of teaching HR for various outcomes. I agree that the whole field, could use more objective or peer-reviewed evaluative studies. They are hard to come by, and HR authors have themselves called for more and better research on HR. I wonder, though: since these studies do not exist, and the article can't cite what doesn't exist, is it fair to tag the article with "badly needs more neutral and peer-reviewed sources"? That is, this problem is not a deficiency of the article, but of the existing research. RRWayne 17:47, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Not every subject CAN be encyclopedic. If it can't be treated encyclopedically, then it can't be in WP. I favor keeping things in WP if possible, but it means that the article has to be very frank about the limited knowledge. There needs to be some kind of disclaimer so that WP readers don't come to view WP as accommodating everyone with a technique to sell. The scepticism that is normally applied to "big corporations" can equally well be applied to the commercial interests of small businesses and the professions (including academics and authors).

Two problems with the kinds of studies that techniques like HR need:

1. they are expensive and
2. they cannot be left to those who have the most financial incentive to perform them, namely those making a living from them.

As a result they are too-rarely performed. The list of evidence-based techniques in psychology and even medicine is so short that health-insurers that rely on them are considered stingy.

Peer-reviewed articles are a step in the right direction because the community of peers is supposed to be appropriately sceptical. The reputation of the journal matters because some journals can make a living out of being accommodating.

I will give the article another close reading to see how to fairly present HR. I have not yet looked at your edits either. I'm hoping to find some existing articles that exemplify the kind of presentation I have in mind so I don't have to do TOO much work. DCDuring 18:25, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Note on "effectiveness" and "technique"

To clarify a misunderstanding above, and to explain some of my recent changes to the article, HR is not a technique, and has no techniques within it. It is a set of understandings arrived at through insight. So when we talk about HR, we cannot (IMHO) properly characterize HR itself as "effective" or "ineffective" (any more than we could properly talk about Zen or literacy as "effective.") What people study when they study the "effectiveness of HR" is really the effectiveness of teaching HR as an intervention for some specific problem. A separate, but equally important question, besides the effectiveness of teaching HR, is the value of HR itself for those who respond to the teaching. HR can conceivably be of great value for many people and institutions, and yet teaching HR might not prove to be effective as an intervention for this or that specific issue.

Consider literacy by way of comparison. Literacy may or may not be an especially effective way of solving any given personal or social problem, but it's value to an individual and a community is inestimable. Most enlightened governments promote literacy because of its value, not because of its effectiveness for specific social outcomes. Indeed, I think most people would agree that making decisions about whether or not to teach literacy based on whether or not it reduces juvenile delinquency in peer reviewed studies, for example, would be missing the point of literacy. And I think most people who have benefitted from HR would similarly agree that the value of HR for their lives goes well beyond any effectiveness it might show in achieving any particular social or psychological outcome. (I think I have even heard it called a kind of emotional literacy.)

Can such broader value be established in a a way that is appropriate to an article in an encyclopedia? I don't know, but I think this could be the real crux of the difficulty here. My impression is that, in the context of an encyclopedia, one accepted way to establish value is by a verifiable listing of activities, accomplishments, and awards similar to a resume or bio. That's the kind of thing I have tried to create in the "community applications" section of the article. RRWayne 19:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Secular religious (an oxymoron?) phenomena can be a problem in terms of encyclopedic treatment. Perhaps the right approach is to look at articles like Alcoholics Anonymous or the one on MSIA or Getting Things Done. It would seem that the article needs fundamental restructuring to reflect the distinction that you are making. DCDuring 19:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Both AA and GTD are heavily invested in technique and focus on specific problems, so I'm doubtful that they are particularly good models to go on for an HR write-up. Zen would be a better parallel, but as I've said above, there is nothing in the Zen article that appears to evaluate Zen or its influence from a neutral or external stance. I'll be thinking about other possibilities. RRWayne 20:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe the article on "New Age" could be something of a model, though the topic is much more broad. RRWayne 20:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Revised "Objections"

I have re-written the section "Objections assuming effectiveness" to better explicate the nature of the objections. I have taken out the responses from Mills & Spittle in the interests of a neutral tone; I may try to incorporate some of what they say back into the earlier sections of the article on the HR model. I plan to put in a paragraph on Strickling's criticisms next, immediately following the existing list of objections. RRWayne 23:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Some not-so-good uses of "self-published" works

I am a little troubled by relying on "self-published" sources for facts about usage of HR in the various settings. Separating the assertions into:

• those that have direct support,
  • from a website not run by an affiliate of HR
  • from a newspaper source or
  • other reliable source
• those without such support, which ought to have some in-text qualifier.

Finally, it would be useful to describe the institutions that are associated with HR. Of particular importance is the Univ of West Virginia HR Institute. If it cannot be demostrated that its funding is not from the core HR institutions and advocates, then the validity of its use as a reliable source could be questioned, though not the peer-reviewed article by those affiliated with it.

I added information on the controversy surrounding WVIIH. According to the article, its funding then came from undisclosed private donors who at least are not the founders of HR or the main trainers--but most likely strong supporters nevertheless.

And just to correct a misimpression: the peer reviewed article on residential treatment was not co-authored by anybody at WVIIH. RRWayne 22:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I AM sympathetic to the problem of getting HR "covered" by neutral sources, but it will be necessary to have some disclosure for the sources to be properly assessed. As it stands, I would not personally be inclined to accept UWVa HRI as a reliable source and would like some in-text qualifiers. I don't know how to come up with reliable sources to demonstrate HRI's independence.

I have used WVIIH as a source in the discussion of the model, which seems appropriate. The only other place was where I used it as evidence that HR had made its way into "mental health clinics," which is hardly debatable. Is there something else I'm missing? RRWayne 22:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Reliable Sources#Self-published and questionable sources in articles about themselves. See also Wikipedia policy on "Conflict of Interest" WP:COI, which might have a bearing on UWVa HRI. [Not applicable to UWVa.]

The affiliates of HR are, of course, reliable sources for describing the tenets of HR and non-controversial facts about HR. There are definitely gray areas about what can be viewed as "controversial", so I welcome discussion. DCDuring 17:23, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at this page: http://mentalhealth.samhsa.gov/schoolviolence/part2chp2.asp

It is a government entity, and it quotes Mills' unpublished work as its source for the statistics it gives. Is this any better than citing Mills unpublished work itself? Does its appearance on an unaffiliated site make it more credible? RRWayne 00:03, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think so. Just as the publication in a peer-reviewed journal makes the UWVa HRI reasearch more credible. DCDuring 00:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Question on citing linked WP articles

Is it permissible to rely on the referencing in linked WP articles instead of repeating the referencing in this article? For instance, if one clicks on the link for Emmy Werner in the last sentence of the article, it takes one right to a page that has the reference for the statement made. That's why I didn't add a reference there. Of course, I can always copy out the citation.

I just saw someone (a bit of a stickler) on WP objecting to such a use, saying that an article's author is supposed to have seen the source material him/herself. If this were merely a 'see also', it wouldn't matter. In this case it is integral to a point. Also WP is not considered a reliable source !!! DCDuring 00:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I will insert a reference for Milton Erickson's collected works, and one for Jay Haley's book on Ordeal Therapy, which describes one kind of intervention Erickson often used to ellicit rapid change without addressing the patient's past misfortunes. A great deal of Erickson's work, and the work described in Haley's book, was actually psychotherapy and did not involve hypnosis. I will also insert a reference for "others who emulate his work" --the large volumes of publications coming out of the International Conferences on Ericksonian Psychotherapy and Hypnosis. And finally I will insert a reference for SFBT outcome studies.

I wouldn't think a reference is needed for "By contrast, HR seeks to promote the shift from problem-oriented thinking by discussing the nature of thought." The earlier referenced discussion of the HR model should have made this clear, though if it is not clear from the earlier discussion, maybe I need to reword it so it doesn't use a new phrase ("nature of Thought.") RRWayne 22:17, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about this last point anymore. If rewording is easy.... I often find that I can't remember the details of what was said "above" if above is not on the screen or the same paper page. Sometimes page-up and page-down aren't good enough. I often need side-be-side comparison. Maybe my mind is just getting old. DCDuring 00:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Inaccuracies created by insertion of "neutral language"

I understand that you want to stick to neutral language, but some of the changes recently made seem to insert neutrality into the model itself, rather than into the description of it, thereby creating inaccuracy. So I am reverting them, except the first one below, which I found a way to alter.

For instance, I understand that you wanted to avoid the word "awareness," in the sentence I wrote, "HR tries to help clients develop an awareness of their innate health". But unfortunately when you wrote "HR tries to help clients develop a faith in their innate health" the new sentence is not an accurate description of what HR tries to do. Few in HR (if any) would describe their relationship to innate health as "a faith in" it. They would describe it as it was previously, as awareness. I recognize that the use of the word "awareness" presupposes the existence of innate health, but the HR model does indeed presuppose that. Unfortunately if we put quotation marks around "awareness of their innate health," it implies a specific quotation, which this is not, so that isn't a solution. Putting quotation marks just around "awareness" doesn't work either, IMO; rather than creating a neutral tone, it seems to create a skeptical tone. So I reworded to " HR focuses on "innate health" and the role of mind, thought, and consciousness in creating the clients' experience of life." Fair?

Another problematic revision: "The more people recognize that they themselves are creating their own painful feelings via their own power of thought, the less these feelings bother them." became "The more people believe that they themselves are creating their own painful feelings via their own power of thought, the less these feelings bother them." (emphasis added)

Again, the latter is not an accurate description of the HR model. For HR, it is not a matter of belief. It is a matter of knowledge, awareness, insight, recognition, understanding. Here the sentence is (IMO) clearly part of an ongoing description of HR thinking, so insertion of "neutral" words shouldn't be necessary or appropriate.

Another one: "Instead the partners learn to wait..." became "Instead the partners are to wait until each has calmed down and is able to discuss things from a place of inner comfort and security." (emphasis added) This makes it sound as if the counselor directs the partners to wait, and they then comply with the direction. That is not accurate. The waiting is indeed something the partners "learn" to do, because they conclude that it makes sense to do it based on discussion of it with the counselor, they try it out, and they find that it has definite benefits, so they continue to do it. In any case the counselor is generally not there to direct them to do it when conflicts flare up.

The change in Chemical dependency and addiction, from "illuminate a pathway to well-being" to "provide a pathway to well-being" is OK with me. RRWayne 23:49, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I understand. Let me see how the fundamental premise can be presented fairly. For example, 'HR postulates that all humans are innately healthy and only need to be brought to awareness of that to ....'

There is a fundamental problem with any system that depends on the faith of the participants for its success but is not comfortable with the word "faith". Many religions are at least frank about the importance of faith. I think that we may not be able to get past this. DCDuring 00:39, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Please consider that it is sometimes possible to acquire a fundamentally different way of conceiving of a subject that changes all one's responses, but that is not based on faith or belief.

The best analogy I can think of at the moment is the well-known perceptual puzzle/image of the hag and the elegant lady. Many people when first shown the image can only see the hag, or the lady, but not both. But with a little help from someone who can see both, these people can soon "discover" or "recognize" or "become aware of" or "learn to see" the second image. Once they see it, it is self evident. It does not require faith or belief. It is just a matter of pattern recognition and Gestalt formation. The person suddenly finds a new way to organize and make sense of the data coming in.

That's essentially what happens with HR. For someone who "gets" HR, it is as if most people are in the position (in their understanding of their own psychology) of a person who can only see the hag, and HR is trying to point out the elegant lady. RRWayne 15:46, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Please point out "original research"

I don't know what the tag refers to in the article. RRWayne 00:14, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

What I did

I added citations for the earliest community applications (referencing the SAMSHA page), for Erickson's work and the work of his followers, for SFBT, and for Emmy Werner.

I reworded a bit in "Support from other approaches..." to reduce/eliminate possible "original research" and clarify.

I moved the "Research efforts..." section up next to the Evaluations section, out of "objections." I added cautions about the objections.

I re-capitalized some instances of Mind, Consciousness, and Thought, as this is the convention in HR when speaking of them as principles rather than using them in the usual sense. RRWayne 21:54, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

State of the article now

The article now has 24 neutral references (that is references that do not come from authors who are specifically affiliated with HR) not counting the 7 more in the final "Support from other approaches" section. This seems like enough that the tag for "badly needs more neutral and peer review sources" is probably no longer merited. Also, I cannot discern any "original research" or unverified claims (except perhaps those in the section on Organizational applications, all of which are supported by HR affiliates), nor can I discern any non-neutral point of view. The section on objections is fairly extensive and IMO balanced. RRWayne 00:27, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't have the time to pick over this now, but I am very appreciative of your efforts. I will remove that tag (which really doesn't look good. I look forward to giving it a close read. The one thing that still bothers me is the use of words

like "realize" rather than "believe". I think of believe as a neutral word, not a negative word. I think of realize as putting even the sceptical reader in the position of wondering whether he "didn't get the e-mail" that declared the proposition that is being "realized" as true. For gullible readers, it seems to exert an undue influence on them. DCDuring 01:52, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

My view of fundamental NPOV issue

My remaining NPOV problem comes down to questions which are not addressed in the article and perhaps cannot be. They are bear on fundamental assumptions of HR:

• What is the evidence that people are innately healthy?
• What does "innate health" mean?
• Does one have to completely suspend scepticism about the reality of innate health in order for HR to "work"?

Please forgive me if you have addressed these questions in your numerous recent edits and direct me to the right headings. DCDuring 02:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Mills & Spittle roughly define "innate mental health" as the "righting" tendency of the psyche, the tendency for well-being and self-sufficiency to return spontaneously, "automatically" when negative, insecure, problem-oriented thinking is cleared away, quieted, or subsides, the natural tendency for people to rebound and regain their equilibrium after challenges, the tendency for natural good feelings and mental health to always "want" to come back. In HR it is considered the source of "resilience"such as that postulated by Emmy Werner to explain her observations. It is called "innate" to distinguish it from any influence that comes from social or environmental conditions. It is understood to come "from inside," expressing itself to the extent that the (quality of the) individual's thinking allows. (page 113-115 in The Wisdom Within).

The external/empirical evidence for innate health comes from 1) resilience research and 2) what has happened when people in horrific circumstances such as Modello/Homestead Gardens or Coliseum Gardens are introduced to HR.

Beyond that, it can perhaps be said that there is individual "experiential" evidence for the existence of innate health.

One does not at all have to suspend skepticism about the reality of innate health for HR to "work," although it is unlikely one will have an initial insight into HR right at the very moment when one's mind is heavily engaged in skeptical thinking of any kind.

The article does not currently include a definition of innate health, and that would probably be a good thing to add. But please say more about why for you the issue of "neutral point of view" comes down to these questions. RRWayne 15:37, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikification needed

I had wikified your citations and now they are not wikified. I'm bored with doing it. DCDuring 18:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Are you referring to placing of internal links as implied by the tag on the article? Or are you referring to the formatting style of the citations themselves? If the latter, I'll take over on it if you can direct me to a page that gives me the standard formats. RRWayne 19:03, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Neutral language

In my view, every use of the words "aware", "realize", and their synonyms, near-synonyms, and variant forms needs to be put in quotes to neutralize the language. The use of the languange has the effect of assuming the truth of assertions that HR makes. I might be wrong. I wonder where we could get a consult on this. DCDuring 18:10, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that words such as "realize" or "recognize" or "become aware of" or "learn that" all carry presuppositions about the existence or reality or truth of whatever comes next in the sentence. I have therefore attempted to confine the latter words to statements that the article identifies (by context, quotation marks, or attribution) as part of the HR teaching . I think these words are appropriate in these places, as this is indeed the way HR people talk about such things, and this is an article whose purpose is to inform the reader about HR. (Thank you, however, for fixing that one at the beginning where it wasn't clear. I may still reword that a touch, for accuracy, but I concur with your impulse to revise it.)

I also agree, as you stated above, that "believe" can be a neutral word in the right context. Certainly people who are involved with HR do have beliefs of various sorts. It is just that what one directly "gets" from HR is an "aha!" experience, not an "I believe" experience. HR is a matter of a sudden re-ordering of a person's way of conceiving of how his or her mind and emotions work. This stands in contrast to what most people refer to when they use the word "believe," that is, how people relate to what they get from moral teachings, from much religion, from persuasion on the basis of argument and external evidence, and perhaps from techniques like affirmations and positive self-suggestion. (I think that the contrasting "aha!" character of HR is the reason, for instance, that HR can be "culturally acceptable" to people such as the Somali and Oromo refugees, whose beliefs about the world are so different from ours. HR doesn't require "belief" to be of benefit to them. Their own cultural beliefs are left intact.) RRWayne 18:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure that the aha! experience is important and valid. I just don't think that WP is where someone should get it. DCDuring 20:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

My only point here is that, since it is a fundamental characteristic of HR that it doesn't aim to change beliefs (as many other systems do) but instead aims to stimulate insight, the article cannot be accurate if it states what HR aims to do, in terms of belief change. I'm all for neutrality, but it should not have to come at the cost of accuracy. And accuracy on this point is important because HR is often misconstrued as an approach based on belief change, and it is therefore lumped together with "New Age" philosophies and religion, to which it bears only a superficial resemblance. (I should like to see some New Age guru try to talk those Somali and Oromo women out of their suffering!) RRWayne 04:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

In any case, the article is by now heavily laden with neutral qualifiers, so even the minimally-alert reader should get the idea that what is being described is the HR model rather than the views of the article's authors. RRWayne 04:34, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I personally feel that the use of quotation marks every place there is a presupposition embedded in the language would unnecessarily destroy readability and give the feeling of a non-neutral, even hostile point of view. If we do that within the description of the HR model, then we would need to do it within the objections as well. Here, for instance, would be my "mark up" of the first objection to HR:

the approach constitutes "denial" of "past traumas".[103] That is, it is asserted that clients must in some way "work through" or "analyze" their "past traumas" for "psychotherapy" to be "effective," and if this is not done, the "underlying dysfunction" will "continue" to "make itself felt" in "harmful" ways. Since HR does not engage clients in exploring "past traumas," by implication (it is argued) it cannot be "effective," and it may have "harmful side effects."

Or here is a line from section on the WVIIH controversy, again with my mark up:

William Post, an orthopedic surgeon who quit the medical school "because of the institute," was reported along with other unnamed "professors" to have "accused" the Sydney Banks Institute of "promoting" so-called religion, and Harvey Silvergate, a so-called civil-liberties lawyer, was quoted as agreeing that ...

Hardly seems worth it. RRWayne 19:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to beat a dead horse. DCDuring 20:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Feedback request and response

I didn't trust myself, so I solicited another's views. Fairly positive for you, I think. Wikipedia:Requests_for_feedback#Health_Realization DCDuring 20:27, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

He doesn't seem to object to the language in the article, unless that's what he is criticizing when he describes it as resembling a dissertation on how HR works. (If so, I don't see it; or at least I don't see how one could accurately describe what HR is about without it coming out much the way it has.) But what is the protocol at this point? Is the NPOV dispute resolution now dependent on satisfying his concerns? Because I am not in a position to add any more attributed objections to HR to the article--I have not encountered any in examining hundreds of references to HR on the web. And I don't know how to respond to the non-specific exhortation to make the article "more encyclopedic." RRWayne 21:52, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

More changes

I've redone the whole section on "objections to HR," making it simply "criticism" instead (none of it is directed at HR). The listing of unattributed objections apparently raises hackles so I have removed it and merely noted their existence with references for those who want to look them up. Removing this makes it possible to eliminate the paragraph with warnings about the objections. I have removed the section "lack of peer-reviewed evidence of effectiveness" because it is not attributable as a criticism (thus it is essentially "original research"). Also the substance of that section is covered earlier in the article, in Evaluations (where "the only peer-reviewed study" is named), and in "Research efforts on effectiveness," (where it is stated that none of the studies were peer-reviewed, etc.) I have also removed the discussion of the "most obvious issues" in regard to HR, as these are again unattributable and constitute "original research."

I have changed two more instances where the wording could have been construed as non-neutral because of using "recognize that". The first now uses "consider that" and the second uses "experience is that" (sounds strange but see it in the context, in section on Psychotherapy.) If there are others that still seem non-neutral, let me know and I'll try to come up with other ways of phrasing them that retain accuracy of description. RRWayne 15:31, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I have also now incorporated the section on Role of Feelings in HR into HR as Therapy, to consolidate the section on the HR Model; and I've put Relationships and Chemical Dependency and Addiction as subheads of HR as Therapy, to reduce their apparent significance within the article as a whole. RRWayne 19:01, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Not bad at all

I have given a close read to the top of the article and made a couple of copy edits (caps) and inserted one "fact" tag.

More importantly, I came across a discussion of the language problem that was bothering me. On page 7 of Steven Pinker's new book, The Stuff of Thought: Language as a Window into Human Nature, he discusses the word "learn", which is awiktionary:factive, which "entails that the belief attributed to the subject is true." Examples of such verbs are "learn", "discover", "know", "understand", "grasp", "show", "see", "observe", "become aware", and "realize". Phrases that use nouns derived from verbs like this retain this "factive" characteristic, e.g., "realization". It is because HR incorporates so many factive words in its teachings that there is a need for all of the "HR states that" clauses in the article. In most studies of religion, these words are avoided. In religious works of faith, those written for believers, one would expect the factive words to get heavy use. Not all of the faithful are necessarily going to be happy with the way that religious scholars talk about their faith, even when they are as respectful as any outside observer can be, but it is difficult to have scholarship on such matters without NPOV-type rules. I'm going to do a little more reading on this to confirm that this is, in fact, generally accepted by linguists. Pinker is a good author, but might have his own POV problems. By the way, I was not thinking of HR at all when I got the book, which I am using to try to make myself a better Wiktionarian. DCDuring 00:57, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your further comments.

Since I've already agreed with you about the way these words create presuppositions, it isn't clear to me why you feel you need outside substantiation for this. The issue now has moved on to whether the reader should be allowed to read HR ideas as HR would present them, or whether instead they should be presented only as interpreted (and likely garbled) by a skeptical and (with all due respect) uncomprehending outsider.

I doubt there is any way to report "neutrally" on any religion without at some point letting the religion speak in its own words. You'd most likely be reporting on your own interpretation of the religion rather than on the religion itself. HR is not a religion, but I believe the same applies.

At this point I think the issue of neutrality boils down to this: is the article neutral if it allows HR to speak in its own words? Can it be neutral if it doesn't? RRWayne 21:45, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Capitalization

I have reverted your changes in capitalization several times before and I am going to do so again shortly. I am capitalizing those uses of the words "mind," "consciousness," and "thought" specifically when the article uses them to refer to the principles of HR. I am doing this both to follow the convention used in HR writing, and because these three words have, in that usage of referring to the principles, different meanings from the common usage for these words. The different meanings are defined in the article. Without the capitalization, it invites the confusion that HR is using the words in the way they normally are used, and this is not correct. If need be, I can insert a statement into the article to say why I am capitalizing the words, but I'd think that shouldn't be necessary, because every place they are capitalized in that way, they are, I believe, included in quotation marks, so the reader can reasonably gather that it is "HR speaking." In some cases, the capitalization is necessary to reflect the original quotation accurately; for instance, the original quote from the Santa Clara HR Services Division capitalizes these three words, and at the very least the article should reproduce that original capitalization rather than changing it to suit the editor's personal conventions. RRWayne 21:45, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Capitalization is a simple matter of following MoS on capitalization. Please see what it says. It is quite straightforward. Any words that are not used in an ordinary way can be put in quotes to reminder the reader of the differences. I will check to make sure that what I suggest is within the MoS rules.

The HR POV is not what this article is intended to convey, just as the articles on Buddhism are not intended to convey the Buddhist experience. It is intended to present an NPOV about HR. The article seems to do so rather well and has an air of objectivity. I incorporated the link to psychoneuroimmunolgy to provide an additional source for objective research results. There does remain the problem of synthesizing such material, which is another potential (even likely) source of OR. As it is now, the OR is largely buried, but remains a potential problem. DCDuring 00:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The permitted alternatives seem to be italics or double quotation marks to indicate distinctive use of a term. There is extensive discussion of this, including mention of the matter of "in-universe" and "out-of-universe" use of terms at: MoSTalk Quotations and punctuation Problems in theater land. The particular case is Stanislavski's 'method'. DCDuring 00:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

That issue hardly seems settled. I agree with the writer there who says "Wikipedia, as I understand it, is meant to follow the use outside of Wikipedia, not to impose its own distortions" and "italics confuses emphasis and double-marks confuses quotation." RRWayne (talk) 20:08, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think I could live with italics for most of the article, but it does not at all make sense to me to change the capitization that is used in a quotation from an external source, without stating that you are changing it. 71.237.223.242 21:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

If I changed something in a quote, that would be a mistake. Please correct it or I'll look for it. I personally like double quotes to indicate a term being used in a very particular way, but some people call them "scare quotes". To me they are neutral, but chacun a son gout. DCDuring 23:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I have changed the capitalization in the direct quote back to the original.

Italics, now that I think of it, would not work well because they usually imply emphasis. Quotation marks, which I gather you are calling "double quotes" are a format I could possibly live with, but the format definitely has problems. In particular, it often makes it impossible to tell when a quotation is intended vs. a special word use. Use of capitalization is never ambiguous in that respect.

I notice in the MoS that "Platonic or transcendent ideals" such as Good or Truth can be capitalized, and this is fairly close to the usage of Mind, Thought, and Consciousness in HR, where they are considered transcendent although admittedly they are not actually ideals ("ideas" is the word used on the page Wikipedia:MoS (capital letters)).

The article on Zen Buddhism capitalizes "Emptiness," without putting it in quotes. This capitalization is repeated in the linked article on Shunyata (where "Voidness" and "the Void" is also capitalized). The capitalization makes it clear that these articles are not talking about emptiness in the common usage, or some colloquial void; perhaps these capitalizations also fall under the rule about transcendent ideals; but if so, these words are used in almost exactly the same way as Mind, Consciousness and Thought in HR. RRWayne (talk) 15:59, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I further notice that you have left the first (definitional) uses of mind, consciousness and thought in the article capitalized, although the words there do not appear at the beginning of a sentence. For consistency, either these should not be capitalized, or these words, when they refer to the principles, should be capitalized throughout. From the point of view of "common sense" (which the MoS allows), I would say these words should be capitalized in the beginning as you have left them, and also everywhere else they are used to refer specifically to the principles within the article, for clarity and consistency. -- RRWayne (talk) 16:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikification

I have added as many internal links to other relevant WP articles as I could think of. I am therefore removing the tag concerning Wikification. If there is further Wikification that needs to be done, please let me know what you have in mind. RRWayne (talk) 20:05, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Outsider's View

I have skimmed the history of the conversation between Wayne and During, an impressive example of Wikipedian collegiality if I ever saw one. I have also read the HR entry and found it to be working well given the challenges. My own relevant background is (a) doctorate from Harvard University in Philosophy and Education, 1975, where I studied primarily analytic philosophy under Israel Scheffler; (b) author and lecturer on "critical thinking" and the college level teaching thereof; (c)Quaker; (d)have been exposed to HR training, and colleagues associated with County of Santa Clara. The latter is a government office strongly committed to HR methodology for social workers and police to be used in community building, substance abuse programs, in jails, and in programs dealing with the homeless and those receiving public assistance. I have followed the work because of its potential as a solution to many problems. It is that potential that makes it both important to have this resource, and at the same time to encourage precision of expression and rigor of evaluation, as well as current resources permit.

With that as background, let me then comment on the challenges WP and its faithful creators are up against, in handling topics such as these. First I agree with the concerns raised, responses thereto, and the actions taken in response. They have all strengthened the article which is, in its turn very useful. (I got here, BTW, as I was doing my cites for a PEER REVIEWED article for a reputable journal published by one of the major publishers of academic journals, Taylor and Francis, and wanted to talk about HR. This is the best and most "neutral" overview I have found.) Anyhow, after all of that, I will offer a few points right now, but hope to return to this conversation another time with more, after hearing from you both.

COMMENTS:

(1) Notwithstanding the "unquestioning" relationships to religious beliefs of many adherents throughout the world, there are also very solid traditions of scholarship within religious communities who can and do write "encyclopediacally"--did I just make up that word? maybe so--anyhow in peer reviewed journals within and outside of their own, or any, religious communities.

(2) To observe one's internal state, insight, etc. or to "recognize" something, and make what IS an empirical claim about it, i.e. I have a toothache, or I just saw God--something incapable of verification by an outsider--is NOT the same thing as to say "I believe I have a toothache", the latter being a claim about one's own cognitions and the former a claim about one's condition or subjective EXPERIENCE. Of the latter, one could say "I definitely had that experience, but I don't know what it means. Maybe someone was just stimulating the part of my brain that I experience as having a toothache, or as seeing God"--but I DID have that experience. That's different than stating I "believe X", where the latter is either, depending on context, conveying some doubt, something short of conviction, or the opposite, asserting as an act of conscious choice a conviction, the latter being a choice about ones cognitions, rather than a "mere" description of one's own subjective experience

(3) Traditions, often collectively referred to as "mystical", that rely on first hand personal experience of the transcendent as the basis of religious belief and practice are themselves in the tradition of empiricism, to that extent--lacking obviously any direct public verification--but different from belief in a text or authoritative pronouncements of an establishment, or even of one's fellows. Zen, 12 step programs, Quakers, Hasids, and HR share that characteristic. It would therefore be inaccurate NOT to use words descriptive of a cognitive state, without quotes,the latter implying that the subject is not in a position to know their own mind. Experiences of these sort are genuine albeit entirely subjective experiences, correctly described as of, e.g. awareness. People can say, "Oh, I've felt that way. I know what you mean"--as they do in HR--when offered a vocubulary to capture the experience, and a way to "get back to that experience", i.e. one of "health". That's as close to public testing, as these kinds of experience get, weak as it is. (But, how different is that, BTW, from "Oh, that's what you mean by 'peacock blue', now I see it". That's not a rhetorical question. It does bear consideration here.)

Anyhow, to rule out all such experience would be to seriously impoverish the encyclopedia, unduly limit our knowledge, and impose a perspective no less dogmatic, and take us back to the deadend of logical positivism, abandoned eventually by Russell and Wittgenstein, each in their own way. I apologize for going on so long. This may not be the right forum for this discussion. It's been a nice break from preparing my reference list. Thanks. Nancy Nglock (talk) 22:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)nglock

Thanks very much for your comments and for taking the time to review the article and its history. (I was at Harvard in 1972-1973, maybe we overlapped. ) I hope to write more of a response soon. RRWayne (talk) 05:31, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

While I agree with you that HR is an experiential approach, I do think HR is a tricky case because the "awarenesses" or "realizations" it talks about are more than just individual experiences.

When someone gives a report of what is understood to be an individual, non-verifiable insight into personal experience, we normally give them the benefit of the doubt that they "know their own mind" in reporting it. Thus, if someone says "I just realized I had a bad dream last night," we take them at their word. It would make no sense to correct that statement to say "You just began to believe you had a bad dream last night." The phrase "had a bad dream last night" is understood to be a report of an individual, non-verifiable experience. But a typical HR statement would be more general: "I just realized that dreams are the royal road to the unconscious." The statement seems to report an insight into experience, but the insight turns out to be a generalization with which others might reasonably disagree.

HR tacitly takes the position that this sort of syntax nevertheless makes sense because its insights in principle are accessible to anyone given the right conditions (much like the visual illusion of the hag and the elegant lady.) As evidence, they might point to the many people who have heatedly disputed the HR teachings, but who then have suddenly, unaccountably, experienced an internal shift such that what they previously disputed now seems obvious. Nevertheless, there are others who have disputed the teachings and have never had such a shift. So as a neutral reporter, it seems quite reasonable to retain some suspension of judgment in regard to the statements and generalizations of HR within the article. But for me what it comes down to is that the article can only suspend judgment if it actually reports the original statements it is suspending judgment about. It cannot claim to be suspending judgment if it alters the statements and then reports them only in the altered form. RRWayne (talk) 16:36, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Dear Readers: As a practitioner and one of the developers of the paradigm that has been known as “Health Realization”, I want to put in a request that those genuinely interested in these principles move away from using the name “Health Realization”. The primary reason for this request is that this name has become identified with the literature on cognitive psychology, with positive psychology and with many of the asset or strength based models. As such I now feel that these associations obscure the deeper truths these principles reveal about how all human beings work psychologically, principles that were first uncovered by Sydney Banks discovery of the deeper nature of Mind, Thought and Consciousness. After thirty plus years of observing incredible and extremely heartwarming outcomes across diverse settings and diagnoses, I would now state categorically that these principles represent more profound basic facts about how all human beings create psychological experience at each moment. In fact I would now say that these principles describe universal constants, the most basic building blocks or elements that generate reality for each person. These are principles for which every field searches in its efforts to find common denominators, deeper underling principles that unify and explain seemingly diverse phenomena. One of the most amazing things is that everyone can understand them and then consciously gain mastery over their own state of mind and mental health status. This discovery provides answers to the many inquiries we have made over the years into the most basic nature of Mind, of the fundamental nature of Thought and of Consciousness. At this point in time there are several control group/comparison group studies and a huge wealth of data showing positive, “raising the bar” results across populations ranging from homeless initiatives through drug and alcohol treatment, inner city community empowerment programs, programs for inmates, juveniles in detention, clinics addressing severe mental illnesses, stress related disorders, family and marital counseling and other societal and mental health issues. However because the logic of the three principles calls for an entirely new look at the nature of our psychological make-up, at mental illness and at the accessibility and the depth of mental health in people, it has been, understandably, hard for the field to know what to make of these data. Thus the call for more studies, with larger “n”s and more stringent controls. As we know, in a field with so many theories and approaches, this response is understandable Einstein came up with the theory of relativity and the relationship of mass to energy through what he called “Thought experiments”, not control group studies. He followed a consistent logic of “if then” that led to insights. Sydney Banks went to a level of consciousness before the forms that Mind, Thought and Consciousness take on to realize how they work together continuously to produce each person’s unique view of life. His discovery has borne out with consistent and remarkable outcomes over a thirty five year period. If we take an honest, objective stance, it is hard to argue with the fact that everyone thinks. It is also hard to argue with the fact that if I am viewing a situation in a certain way, I will have an emotional and behavioral reaction that is consistent with how I am interpreting or seeing that situation. It is hard to argue with the fact that everyone is aware of some reality , at least their own version of reality, and that that version varies widely even across people in the same situation. It is also hard to argue with the fact that people are not always in a state of mind where their paranoid, angry, insecure or self defeating thoughts are being triggered to determine their mental health status. It is also hard to deny that people throughout time have had transcendent experiences that have taken them immediately out of difficult, seemingly hopeless situations and misery to find new levels of hope, wisdom and emotional health. We have seen thousands of examples of this almost instantaneous shift to mental health. It is also difficult to lay out a set of application techniques or standard protocol, as the most important ingredient in sharing or teaching this understanding is merely the depth of understanding (the ability to “See” thought in action and to experience their own deeper mental health) of the helper. This dimension, or active ingredient, in change has been severely undervalued by the field. It has been both exciting and personally rewarding for me to realize what mental health is, and where it originates, as I did not have even one course on the nature of mental health in my entire Ph.D. program. William James greatest dream was that the field would discover underlying principles which could lead to better cures for both individual and societal ills. We now stand on the brink of such a breakthrough if the field can begin to see what these principles imply. Intellectually they seem way too simple and straightforward. To understand them with the intellect doesn’t provide much help. If they are realized via an insight however they have tremendous healing power. As a field we can, and do, argue endlessly from our intellects about every theory and approach. However once anyone has a real insight, they know how things work, and their mental health is in their own hands, in a very obvious and common sense way. We are now calling this understanding either Principle Based or Three Principles Psychology because of what discovering underlying principles means for this field or for any field.

----  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rogercsc (talk • contribs) 20:27, 4 November 2008 (UTC) 

Neutral language

In my view this is still in need of much clean up. The biggest fault of the article is that it is not written in encyclopedic style and sounds more like a brochure. For example in the introduction: (objectionable passages italicized)

"HR focuses on the nature of thought and how it affects one's experience of the world." should be: HR focuses on how perception affects one's experience of the world. or if you find that not to your taste: HR focuses on how one's thought process can affect how one experiences the world.

and

"Students of HR are taught that they can change how they react to their circumstances by becoming aware that they are creating their own experience as they respond to their thoughts, and by connecting to their "innate health" and "inner wisdom."[3] should be: Students of HR are taught that they can control how they react to their circumstances. Two ideas called "innate health" and "inner wisdom" are important to this precept.

These types of changes need to be made to the entire work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raps0007 (talk • contribs) 14:43, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Regarding: "Students of HR are taught that they can change how they react to their circumstances by becoming aware that they are creating their own experience as they respond to their thoughts, and by connecting to their "innate health" and "inner wisdom."[3]

The reason "they can CONTROL how they react to their circumstances" is INcorrect, is this: it's the understanding itself that changes their thinking/experience, it's not a matter of having to "control" their reaction, because that's too much work. Wise responses automatically become "common sense" to the brain, in the same same way that we automatically move away from a heat source when we get too hot. Frances2023 (talk) 03:43, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

1992 perspective

This June 1992 Washington Post article has some data that looks like it could be useful for this article.

• "an estimated 50 therapists who use an approach called 'Psychology of Mind' (POM)". (unfortunately, the article does not explain how that number was discovered nor if it's a worldwide count or a smaller region.)
• "The first book on POM, Sanity, Insanity and Common Sense" (Oddly, this book is not mentioned in the article. It was written in 1982 by Rick Suarez and Roger C. Mills.)
• "Is POM a Cult?" (is a section with criticism. One issue I saw is that, at least in 1992, POM was relatively unknown. It has not been studied in a formal sense meaning there's very little published criticism. The last paragraph of this section shows that there's also no agreement on who coined the phrase "psychology of mind".)

--Marc Kupper|talk 21:09, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Merge proposal

Three Principles (self-help) → Health realization

It seems that these two articles are largely about the same subject matter. I'm not sure which is a better name, but this article is the older one, so I'm suggesting that this be the merge destination. bibliomaniac15 06:27, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you and yes, I agree. Can I please ask, how does this work? Would the totality of information from Three Principles (self-help) be added to Health Realization, and then we edit from there?

May I respectfully suggest that the new page be called Three Principles Psychology. Frances2023 (talk) 03:25, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

After submitting this suggestion to the board of the Three Principles Global Community, it became obvious that both pages deserve to stay in their own right. Some revision will be suggested. Thank you for your assistance. Frances2023 (talk) 19:48, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Is there an opportunity to rename the page Three principles (self-help) to Three Principles Psychology please? Frances2023 (talk) 19:51, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Support merge as intitially proposed; there is heavy overlap, and so consolidation would resovle this current problem. It could also be combined with the page move to the current term, Three Principles Psychology, as Frances2023 requests. Klbrain (talk) 14:57, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree @Klbrain. Consolidation makes the most sense given Wikipedia's excellent layout protocol. All information from both pages could be included under appropriate headings. Please advise the next step? Frances2023 (talk) 19:40, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

I plan to initiate this merge to address content overlap, enhance comprehensiveness, and eliminate redundancy. Newcomers to the Principles deserve a clear and concise Wikipedia page. Please let me know if you have any objections; otherwise, I will proceed shortly. Frances2023 (talk) 03:07, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Another reason for the merge is that the Three Principles (self-help) page is currently attracting 1600+ views per month, while the Health Realization page is only attracting 350+ per month. However, it's the Health Realization page that has the largest amount of content and references. It will be quite a simple process to incorporate the data from the TP(s-h) into the HR page. Frances2023 (talk) 08:56, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

The result of this discussion is to merge the two pages. Thank you to all who have contributed to this discussion. Frances2023 (talk) 23:43, 13 August 2024 (UTC)}}

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Frances2023 (talk) 23:43, 13 August 2024 (UTC)