User talk:Aman11040

Dear Aman11040,

           How do you feel about the Wikipedia assignments? 

Sincerely, F.Moshammad (talk) 18:22, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I like it so far its interesting, how is it going for you? --Aman11040 (talk) 20:37, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

How do you like the assignments so far? Azahur (talk) 22:07, 12 February 2013 (UTC)Azahur

Hi Aman I think we need to have 3 userpages for 3 credits? 

Aaleksanian 18:15, 21 February 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaleksanian (talk • contribs)

Peer Reviews, Pre & Post

Hi Aman11040,

How would you like to be apart of our group that efficiently reviews each other's edits (pre & post) when they are placed on blackboard?

Reply if you're interested (It is getting crowd, which makes it all the better)

See ya,

Xyzbb1253 (talk) 05:16, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Be caredful with looking at popular Psy like if it were Scientific Psy

Aman1004,

I think the info. cited in the piece about personality tests along with the opinion on honesty of subjects in self-reported results from self administered test may have its own merits, the piece fails to account for the deffiiencies of such tests and results if compared to Personality tests that are from scientific sources and that went through the Validity and Reliability in Psychology testin processes. These two processes are in fact conducted in order to address the flaws that non-scientific and self-administered personality tests have ingrrained in them. Psychology is a wonderful topic, and all kinds of poeple formally trained and uneducated in the topic formally are attracted to it. A good number is bound to make unqualified acsertion like if they were statistically conducte with validity and reliability testing.

Another item, I'd like t mention to you Aman1040 is on the job enrichment article, specially the statements on job satisfaction and disatisfaction. Two things about it. Job satisfaction measurement like personality tests are validated like the personality ones and any other legit Psy test. Therefore, you want to be careful with questioning the honesty of "subjects" because without concrete grounds for it. The same line of questioning can apply to for example the NY article cited, and that article is not a scientific Psychology Report. As such its credibility at face value is worse than questionable.

The second item you might want to consider while you make your contributions to the article Aman1040, is that the motivation theory is one that is quite broader than just "satisfied with your job" or "disatisfied with your job." I would suggest for you to research the literatur on Frederick Herzberg in the 1950's; a text book titled "MOtivation and Work Behavior" by Richard M Steers, and Lyman W Porter is a superb one that you will find helpful in your writins about this topic. IN there you will read about the phase called "not satisfied," which is not the same as "disatisfied" at all, and surely is not the same as "satisfied."

Additionally, it will show you how that the job enrichment terms refers to enrichment of the job not of the individual. That job enriched is a motivational factor and a retention factor; rather variable I ought to say.

You will also find data in it that explains and show and proves that the following statement is biased, an overgeneralization and unfounded opinion:

"Increasing job satisfaction and performance is done by decreasing job dissatisfaction, caused by wages and working environment, and increasing opportunities for growth, responsibility and recognition for achievement."

The reason I state that is not valid is that it blatently ignores and lumps everybody with everyone who receives competitively high compensation, but is not satisfied, or worse off --- disatisfied. It does not account for why that happens. I think that that piece in the article is mere gronoaling from the view of disgruntled employees advocates such as union organizers. But they just don't know any better. They are trying to make their view known, but it lacks scientific backing in its totallity.

As a professional in whatever field you become involved, you will find that a comprehensive knowledge of General Statistics in Psy, Validity and Testing in Psy, and Statistical Research and Design Analysis in Psychology, and General Economic undergraduate lower class and upper class courses will aid you incredibly in a good way, specially as you encounter bogus reasons for this that or the other in your day to day work of representing or defending a legit project or position of your employer, or persuade him or her to make improvements or consider new projects, or to steer him or her away from "danger" you can forsee or anticipate as a result of your knowledge in the areas I mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Romullous (talk • contribs) 00:36, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

post edit

Hi Aman,i did your post edit can you do mine please.. thank you in advance --Keronica Grant (talk) 06:46, 15 May 2013 (UTC)