This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:WikiProject Psychology. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

→

January 2009

Category deletion discussion

Please see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_December_31#Categories_named_after_psychological_traits and weigh in if you so desire. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:42, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Category:Interest (emotion)

I question the usefulness of Category:Interest (emotion) and entered it on Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion. I do not think of interest as an emotion. If anyone has a opinion on this, I urge them to comment in the discussion Thanks, —Mattisse (Talk) 18:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that narrow approach to emotions is exhausted. However, if the discussion is broadened to include memory, for example, we could have much better articles. Multidisciplinary approach would be, in my opinion, highly recommended.

Kind regards, Damir Ibrisimovic (talk) 00:21, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Descriptive psychology

Hi. I thought I should bring to the attention of the WikiProject Psychology members that the article, Descriptive psychology, needs ratings on both quality and importance. EPM (talk) 22:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

My guess is that it ranks relatively low on importance (I like DP a lot, but the opacity of Ossorio's writing seems to put a lot of people off, and I've never seen it mentioned outside of the few people who love it). From a quality POV, it looks like a reasonable summary of the content of _The Behavior of Persons_. Not sure what else the article wants to be when it grows up. But I have to read it more carefully, and find out how to actually put a rating on it. Mirafra (talk) 22:42, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Zoophilia

Mainstream expert attention to this article would be appreciated. Sticky Parkin 00:55, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposed merger of Apparitional experience to ghost

See Talk:Ghost#Merger_proposal. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:42, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Obsessive-compulsive disorder article

The current OCD article is full of original research, it will be good if few of the editors can foucus on this important article. Thank you. Bluptr (talk) 17:59, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

February 2009

Milestone Announcements

All WikiProjects are invited to have their "milestone-reached" announcements automatically placed onto Wikipedia's announcements page.
Milestones could include the number of FAs, GAs or articles covered by the project.
No work need be done by the project themselves; they just need to provide some details when they sign up. A bot will do all of the hard work.

Click here for more information or to sign your project up.

I thought this WikiProject might be interested. Ping me with any specific queries or leave them on the page linked to above. Thanks! - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 22:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Two related Categories at CFD

Two categories with very similar names (but to my mind, different scopes) -- Category:Behavioral psychologists and Category:Behaviourist psychologists -- are currently under discussion at CFD. As always, your input will be of benefit to the discussion. Cgingold (talk) 05:52, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps review/reassessments

Kohlberg's stages of moral development

Kohlberg's stages of moral development has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Articles are typically reviewed for one week. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:22, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Beck Depression Inventory

Beck Depression Inventory has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Articles are typically reviewed for one week. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:53, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Lucid dream

Lucid dream has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Articles are typically reviewed for one week. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:23, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Large numbers of short articles about phobias

There are a large number of short articles about phobias. Is it possible that these could be compiled together and put into a list instead like you have done with the articles about Pokemon (I remember there used to be an article on each pokemon, but now only the most famous have a seperate page). I just believe that many of them are too short to have seperate articles because there's not enough to say about them individually.--XerxesK (talk) 22:53, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Percept article

Dear all, I’m in progress of rewriting the dreadful Percept article. I’ve received philosopher’s rating and I would like a rating from psychologists’ view & input how to enhance it. Please see related discussion page.

I have also decided to harden my nudge-nudge approach in Perception article. I also intend to give some space to philosophical views and contrast them with the latest findings. Please visit the related discussion page.

I already expressed some concerns with the current Consciousness article. There is serious lack of the latest findings in psychology and neurology. This would require cooperation between philosophically and psychologically minded Wikipedians - please join the discussion.

I also expressed concerns with the mess Information article is in at the related discussion page. I have invited mathematically minded Wikipedians and I invite you. In my opinion, psychology has a lot to say about many things, for how we perceive is at the core of all we do, think, feel etc. All we need is a tentative agreement and further refinements will make Wikipedia shine. (I read, in New Scientist I believe, that Wikipedians are quite conservative, orthodox or just repeating what they learned in school. Personally, I think that we should fight this image.)

Kind regards, Damir Ibrisimovic (talk) 05:14, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

"Psychological x" vs. "x (Psychology)

This is in regards to terms where there are alternative uses and to disambiguate that it addresses the use of the word in psychology. Has there been an agreement in regards with which one to use consistantly, or are both used in differing situations? I am unsure because recently I have seen Psycholog+ the -y parenthesis used afterwards more frequently than -al used before. Examples: Rationalization (psychology), Regression (psychology) v. Psychological repression. My scope is limited though, for those who are more familiar with the general construction of articles in this project and/or general Wikipolicy on it. Tyciol (talk) 22:37, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Newly added

I tagged Regression (psychology), Rationalization (psychology) and Intellectualization talk pages with wikiProject. The untagged status contributed to my hesitancy to weight by numbers the status in the previous topic. If anyone with knowledge of these could contribute and/or use appropriate templates indicating what kind of work needs done and quality. I weighted them all at 'high' to begin with, please lower if you are satisfied with the current quality. Tyciol (talk) 23:03, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Coordinators' working group

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 06:21, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

March 2009

Rational emotive behavior therapy

Would someone American and familiar with the level of used of this therapy please add and reference to the History section of this article. There is no context in this article as to its level of use in current practice. I never see it used in Australia, and have not seen it referred to in Clinical Practice Guidelines in the US. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:35, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

A really difficult question to quantify. This approach has been incorporated into a more general concept of CBT, just as the earlier concepts and techs of Aaron Beck's cognitive therapy . Probably best considered a school of thought within cognitive therapy, rather than now being a distinct therapy, although those advocating for REBT do strongly promote its underlying theory and techiques, as distinctly different from AT Becks approach or CBT. Many practicing cognitive therapists would be taught and use some of the original techs of REBT - although most would fail to make a distinction, during clinical day to day practice. Formal research and clinical guidelines tend make reference to CBT in general.

The article is overly detailed - probably needs to be written for a more general audience. Earlypsychosis (talk) 05:11, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

So much of REBT has been incorporated into CBT. REBT is almost a historical relic now, as new generations of practitioners do not necessarily distinguish the historical roots nor even know about the differences between CBT and REBT. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:37, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree Earlypsychosis (talk) 07:26, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

clinical formulation

clinical formulation ...new article needs work Earlypsychosis (talk) 07:57, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

John Neulinger

If any experts have time to take a look and make some changes or suggestions regarding a new article about John Neulinger I would appreciate it. I haven't yet had time to add criticism, so that would be helpful as well. Viriditas (talk) 03:06, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I've begun adding criticism. Viriditas (talk) 03:58, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposed merger of Multiple personality controversy to Dissociative identity disorder

Join in the fun at Talk:Dissociative_identity_disorder#Merger_proposal Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:06, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Article alerts

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 09:35, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

Category:Bipolar disorder

New category I just made this category and a pair of subcategories. In addition, I rearranged some articles that were in the more generic Category:Mood disorders. I also took the liberty of rating them on their talk pages. If there are any issues/questions, please e-mail me or post on my talk. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:21, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Global psychology

Someone created an article on what appears to be a slightly obscure but fascinating branch of psychology called global psychology. I've done some copy-editing, and I think that this is a legitimate, notable topic, although I fear that folks who are more hard-core deletionists than I am might AfD it as a WP:NEO. Any improvements or expansions that could be made to this article would be much appreciated. Cosmic Latte (talk) 08:48, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

scientific or lay ?

the word "paranoid" in regard "to be paranoid about weight" seems to be used as a lay word, not as a sientific term.

Scientific definition from Wiktionary as of 22mar09 paranoia (plural paranoias)

A psychotic disorder characterized by delusions of persecution Extreme, irrational distrust of others

Using lay meaning of this word seems inappropriate for encyclopedia format of Wikipedia (?) sveta sears (talk) 00:18, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:38, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

proposed merger of Narcissism (psychology) to Narcissism

Join in the fun at Talk:Narcissism#Merger_proposal Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:51, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

April 2009

Consciousness article

Dear all,

I have proposed new text for intro on consciousness article on the related discussion pages. I think that I managed to articulate it in line with the latest findings in psychology and neurology, but would like others to review it and comment.

Kind regards, Damir Ibrisimovic (talk) 06:53, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

proposed merger of Mind-blindness to Empathy

merger of Mind-blindness to Empathy, discuss at Talk:Empathy/Archive 1#Merger_proposal. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:34, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Homosexual transsexual

The editor of Homosexual transsexual maintains that this is a term used in Psychology by psychologists. I maintain that it is not a diagnositic category or formal terminology in Psychology. I would appreciate others weighing in on the article talk page, as the article is controversial and is in queue for its fourth Good article review. (I may be wrong, but I would still appreciate knowing. I believe the term is used in Sexology rather than specifically Psychology.) Also, any suggestions for the article would be helpful. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 21:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Who's really a psychologist?

Mattisse has been attempting to improve Homosexual transsexual recently, and would like to dissociate this idea (that transwomen attracted to men have more successful outcomes than transwomen who are not) from the field of psychology. This has put her in the awkward position of claiming that Ray Blanchard, a proponent of this idea, is not a psychologist -- despite a PhD in psychology, a current license to practice clinical psychology, and so forth. As I understand the current argument, Blanchard's work with some physician in the past disqualifies him from the title of psychologist, and that in general, psychologists that specialize in sexuality quit being psychologists and start being exclusively "sexologists". I may be misunderstanding things; at least, I hope I am.

It looks like we may need to have several more arguments about whether people with PhD in psychology, titles like 'professor of psychology' at major universities, and long lists of publications in psych journals are "really" psychologists if they happen to study the psychology of sex. Is anyone else available to help settle these issues? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:40, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

The general usage in the professional world is that a "psychologist" is someone who has a license to practice psychology. It is also commonly used to describe someone who primarily conducts academic research in the field of psychology. It is common for psychologists to have areas of specialty or subspecialty, of particular professional competence. Helping people with sexual dysfunctions is certainly an area of professional competence that many psychologists don't have and many other psychologists specialize in. Having such a specialty does not make one no longer a "psychologist," though. This sounds like a political POV, although I'm rather baffled as to why it would be to anyone's advantage to say that they were a "sexologist" and not also a "psychologist." Mirafra (talk) 18:13, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Isador Coriat

Hi everybody, I'm working on the article about Isador Coriat and I'm looking for some related sources, available only via http://www.p-e-p.org/. Unfortunately, I have no access to this database. Maybe someone can help me? (the articles I'm looking for are: [1], [2] and [3]). I will be very grateful for any help. Please let me know, if my request is inappropriate here.. Best wishes, Filip em (talk) 23:43, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Pro-ana

Pro-ana is being peer reviewed. Interesting article to establish NPOV on. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:28, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

colored raven matrice tests

I read on the article for Raven matrices that the colored tests are easier and simpler. Is this really true? —Preceding unsigned comment added by YVNP (talk • contribs) 06:45, 25 April 2009 (UTC) For reference I give the Danish version of this IQ test(it is colored unlike the other ones) http://iqtest.dk/main.swf YVNP (talk) 06:51, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

case management

any thoughts on this case management topic ? Talk:Case management#disambiguation and merge needed. Earlypsychosis (talk) 01:07, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Missing psychology topics

I recently updated by page of missing topics related to psychology and wonder if anyone cold have a look at it. Thank you - Skysmith (talk) 12:40, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Help, please

Can we get a rational and non-tendentious editor at Feminine essence theory of transsexuality, please?

The ideal editor(s) will have some passing familiarity with PMID 18431641 (free full text; it's long, but the relevant bit can be found by searching for "essence"), PMID 18431630 (first page free), and PMID 17951886 (I can e-mail the text to you), as well as being able to tell the difference between the idea that a transwoman is a "woman trapped in a man's body" being described in these 2007-2008 papers, and being made up in these papers.

Right now, we have an editor desperately seizing at any possible straw to prove that all of these authors, and all of the other authors that write about this idea, are all talking about completely different ideas, even though they use the same terms, apply the same popular phrase, and specifically and plainly refer to each other's publications. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:44, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Article review needed

Socionics has experienced some contentious editing lately. We believe the time has come for a formal review of the article, particular on matters of notability. Tcaudilllg (talk) 16:26, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

May 2009

The article on Creativity is currently under the auspices of the WikiProject Group for Philosophy. This is rather strange, because I would thought it better suited for your group. Could you please see to getting a psychological focus for this article? Some years ago, in 2006, I nominated this article for Featured Article status. Did you wish to look at it and see what you think? Many thanks, ACEOREVIVED (talk) 19:46, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps invitation

This message is being sent to WikiProjects with GAs under their scope. Since August 2007, WikiProject Good Articles has been participating in GA sweeps. The process helps to ensure that articles that have passed a nomination before that date meet the GA criteria. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. Instead of reviewing by topic, editors can consider picking and choosing whichever articles they are interested in.

We are always looking for new members to assist with reviewing the remaining articles, and since this project has GAs under its scope, it would be beneficial if any of its members could review a few articles (perhaps your project's articles). Your project's members are likely to be more knowledgeable about your topic GAs then an outside reviewer. As a result, reviewing your project's articles would improve the quality of the review in ensuring that the article meets your project's concerns on sourcing, content, and guidelines. However, members can also review any other article in the worklist to ensure it meets the GA criteria.

If any members are interested, please visit the GA sweeps page for further details and instructions in initiating a review. If you'd like to join the process, please add your name to the running total page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles from the worklist or has a significant impact on the process, s/he will get an award when they reach that threshold. With ~1,300 articles left to review, we would appreciate any editors that could contribute in helping to uphold the quality of GAs. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:18, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Parental alienation

It looks like we have a bit of an edit war at Parental alienation and Parental alienation syndrome, with personal communication from "numerous advisors to us" and "authors of those scholarly papers" being invoked. Anybody with a few minutes free, please watchlist the articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:40, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Police psychology

This page is in need of some TLC. Best regards, momo ricks 01:36, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Psychological evaluation

a simple project for someone to work on. needs a decent rewrite, based on good sound sources. Earlypsychosis (talk) 08:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

It's such a basic topic -- will textbooks be reasonable for sources? Are we looking for a long article or just an overview that can link to the different types of evaluation instruments? Mirafra (talk) 05:05, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

and such a shame that a basic topic has such a poor wikipedia article Earlypsychosis (talk) 07:34, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I have a lot of professional knowledge in this area, and this is, as you say, a nice bit of low-hanging fruit I can do while taking a break from my dissertation. I just wanted to know (1) if it's okay to pull my Psych Assessment 101 textbooks off the shelf to use as references, or if I have to look for something more peer-reviewed and (2) if the intention is for the article to be twice as long or twenty times as long. Mirafra (talk) 22:35, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I think text books should be fine. I used Gleitman (may years ago). Any editions would be useful. I dont think the article needs to be long. Earlypsychosis (talk) 08:45, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm banging out some actual testing reports now, hence the delay.

Actually, I noticed that there is a long article at "psychological testing" -- probably what we should do is merge those together. "Evaluation" is a better term, though, since it goes way beyond testing. "Assessment" is another synonym. How do we make the merge happen? I'm sort of a newbie here. Mirafra (talk) 21:29, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Collective Unconscious

The Collective Unconscious article is really really poor, in my opinion. given that this topic is 1/3 of all of Jung's work, it needs more than an introduction and a poxy collection of see also's. Not only that, but a major section on contemporary views on the collective unconcious would be good. From my understanding, the concept is incongruous with evolutionary theory, which is what Jung based it on. Genes pass on physical attributes not memories, surely the notion of a universal memory inherited from cavemen is bollocks?

--rakkar (talk) 09:53, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

June 2009

New article questions

I was wondering if I could get a little assistance in finding further citations for an article I created, Grief porn. I've found some, but more references are always better than fewer. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, an obscure one I will grant you, and I have never heard of it..if I get time...Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:08, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I found a few, as indicated by the article's talk page, but I was wondering if there are any academic articles referencing the phenomena outside of its colloquial usage. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Psychopathology

WP:WikiProject Psychopathology is listed as inactive, and no talk page activity since 2007. I think you guys should probably absorb it... 70.29.210.174 (talk) 05:48, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree to this. Create/add whatever useful info/guidelines are present in that project and merge that project into here. Calaka (talk) 06:39, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Task force Psychiatry

At WP:WikiProject Medicine there is a proposal to create a task force psychiatry. 70.29.210.174 (talk) 05:48, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Source check?

Hi. The article Paranoiac knowledge has been tagged for copyright investigations. If infringement is involved, it may involve more than one source. I am able to verify through google search some text duplication from [4] (see [5]), but I can't access the document, which is available to subscribers of Psychoanalytic Electronic Publishing database. Is anyone here able to provide assistance with this by comparing our article with that previously published text? I would welcome even negative responses, since I will need to look elsewhere if not. You seemed my first and best hope. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:33, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Looking at it briefly, no reason why it warrants more than a segment somewhere in paranoia. Not seen it before. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:20, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. :) I'm hoping somebody can tell me how extensive the infringement is, to what degree the text is tainted and needs purging. If nobody has access to the original here, I may carry it over to resource exchange. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:51, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I have PEP access -- is this still a current problem? Mirafra (talk) 04:42, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Outline of psychology

Editors knowledgeable in psychology (or who have a keen interest in it) are needed to flesh out this subject's outline.

Psychology is a major branch of the Outline of knowledge, but its outline is only slightly developed (little more than a stub).

The Transhumanist 03:04, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Where to request assessments?

Is there a page to place articles to be assessed? -- Scarpy (talk) 04:29, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Heritability of IQ

This article was proposed to be changed into Heritability of Intelligence. That was objected two by the reasoning that IQ is not related to intelligence.

I think that other editors should weigh in on this. The Squicks (talk) 00:59, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the proposal. "Intelligence" is the thing we actually care about. Fundamentally, we cannot actually measure it. Hell, we can't even really completely define it -- huge amounts of disagreement exist within the professional world about just what "intelligence" is and what its component parts might be. On the other hand, "IQ" is a type of score given by a certain limited number of cognitive tests. That's easier to measure, but it's a leap to claim that it tells us anything immutably true about a human being. Someone once joked that IQ is the ability to do well on IQ tests, but the fact is, it's not a joke. Intelligence is a real thing. IQ is a necessarily imperfect measure of that real thing. We can measure heritability of IQ test scores as a way of trying to gain understanding of the heritability of intelligence, but we can't conflate the two. (Boy, was that long-winded enough?) Mirafra (talk) 23:11, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Could use some fresh voices at Talk:Rorschach test

We could use some fresh voices in the long-running dispute over whether to display, how many to display, and where to place, the Rorschach test inkblot image(s). The most recent debate, at Talk:Rorschach test#All 10 images is over whether to include a gallery with all the images. –xeno^talk 22:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Temperament

I added the Temperament article to the WikiProject. It's a mishmash of stuff, a mess really. It could benefit from an expert's input. It seems an important topic to me, but I have no credentials in this area, so I rated it as Low. ThreeOfCups (talk) 23:43, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, definitely a mishmash. I suggest dropping Steiner and artistic and the rest of the mishmash, and focusing on the Thomas and Chess stuff, which is much more solidly within the mainstream of psychology these days. I'll see what I can find in my library in terms of references. Mirafra (talk) 05:02, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

New stub types proposal

Hi all - I've proposed a new split of stub types at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Proposals/2009/June#Split_of_Cat:Psychology_stubs which might both affect and benefit this WikiProject. The current Category:Psychology stubs is very large - the proposal would see several subtypes (and probably subcategories) of it made. Input on the proposals from this project would be most welcome. Grutness...wha? 02:09, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Request for information on Jolande Jacobi

I recently started a page on the psychologist and disciple of Carl Gustav Jung, Jolande Jacobi, but my knowledge of her is a little rusty (it was a long time since I last read her introduction to Jung's psychology, or the biography of Jung by Brome which mentions Jacobi). I shall be grateful if any one who has more knowledge of her can add details to the article, as this would help to release the article from its current stub status. Many thanks, I shall look forward to seeing whether any Wikipedians can work on this one, ACEOREVIVED (talk) 20:43, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Psychiatry task force

...is open for business. See the talk page and join in the fun. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:33, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Case management (mental health)

new articles Case management (mental health) and Care programme approach (for our UK friends) Earlypsychosis (talk) 16:47, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

New Psychology Policy

A new policy about Psychological tests is being proposed at Wikipedia:Involuntary Health Consequences. Please come and discuss it. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 02:49, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

FYI, the proposed policy is to basically bring WP in line with the APA and other professional organizations' ethics codes regarding test security.Mirafra (talk) 23:02, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Peh. No, the proposed policy is intended to bring Wikipedia in line with the opinions of several POV pushers wikilawyering to have their own way after an extremely sound consensus told them they were wrong. But nice try hoping to confuse people here. DreamGuy (talk) 14:50, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Nice try engaging in character attacks, mischaracterizing the ongoing debate, where there is nothing even remotely resembling consensus, and trying to move the discussion here. I was presenting what I believe was a NPOV about the content of the proposal, so that readers might have a clue as to why it was relevant to psychology professionals. Mirafra (talk) 18:39, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

July 2009

added common factors theory under #/Psychotherapy task force

counseling psychology

restructured counseling psychology article and added much more cited info. It's a work in progress: still need to add more domains of counseling psychology, and existing domains could use more background and research. MarylandCSP (talk) 03:03, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Clinical significance

article written under #/Psychotherapy task force MarylandCSP (talk) 04:52, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks great to me! One comment: people doing standardized assessments (psych evaluations) commonly speak of this in the context of the differences between test scores of the same individual. As in, "The difference between the Verbal Comprehension Index and the Perceptual Reasoning Index is statistically significant (unlikely to have occurred by chance). However, this difference is unlikely to be clinically significant, because it is relatively common within the population, and because Johnny's history does not indicate any signs of impairment in nonverbal processing." It ties in with a general psych-assessment principle of "tests don't diagnose, people do." I'm sure there would be a comment about that in Sattler (Assessment of Children) or one of the other standard intro-psych-assessment texts... do you want me to try to find you a specific reference? I'm reluctant to try myself to weave this into the very nice fabric you've already woven -- not quite sure where it would fit. Mirafra (talk) 13:00, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Good point! The use of clinical significance in practice is important. A statistically significant difference between subscales on the WAIS might not be clinically significant because the difference does not suggest dysfunction or clinical diagnosis. I think the practice perspective would fit nicely into the introduction of what clinical significance is & when/how it is used. It looks like a lot of introductions to topics in Wikipedia are a couple paragraphs so it'd be good to flesh out what clinical significance is & when it is used before getting into the subtopics. MarylandCSP (talk) 17:38, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Done. I made it a second paragraph in the lead, with a crosslink to psychological assessment. Let me know what you think.Mirafra (talk) 19:12, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

It adds relevant info about use of clinical significance in practice, and is written clearly. Very cool! MarylandCSP (talk) 01:09, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

The article's Talk page has been given a label under the Wikipedia Medicine category. It was requested under a Psychology project (psychotherapy), so why is it under the Medicine domain? How are categories assigned? Thanks for any clarification. MarylandCSP (talk) 16:23, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

treatment of panic disorder - regional difference in guidelines

It seems that the US guidelines (APA) recommend benzodiazepines for the treatment of panic disorder while the UK guidelines from NICE state that they are not recommended and are best avoided. See the discussion Talk:Panic disorder#Medications section on panic disorder copied from talk page and edits of panic disorder. This might be a regional variation in clinical practice. Unfortunately the bulk of the literature comes from USA - so there might be a need to consider the sources carefully without undue weight. Helpful and neutral edits needed please. Earlypsychosis (talk) 02:32, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree that there is a huge regional difference. As to who is right is another question. Go with the empirical evidence. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 02:51, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed that there is contradiction within the literature. I think we should document the different points of view and make it clear where each one predominates. Even better, if we can find literature that talks about the indications / contraindications, that would be great. For instance, I've worked in substance abuse (there's a lot of comorbidity with trauma, which predisposes to panic), where the issues of med-seeking and resale of the pills and the like made benzos less of a good choice than other options. There doesn't seem to be a problem of fringiness here, just a legitimate difference in practice style. Mirafra (talk) 14:16, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Münchausen by Internet

I just rewrote an expanded this article, and would like to make sure I am not abusing psychiatric language in it. I am not a psychologist or doctor. I would appreciate someone taking a look to see that my intended meanings in English do not misrepresent professional theories. Thank you. --Moni3 (talk) 19:39, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll take a look at it. First glance, looks like you've done a very nice job. Mirafra (talk) 16:14, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Done. In general, I like it a lot. You've done a nice job of maintaining a neutral and nonjudgmental tone, even with a disorder that generates a lot of hot feelings. I don't think you're abusing psychological language at all. Actually, I might suggest you look more into the literature surrounding Factitious Disorder (by proxy or not) and the connection to personality disorders (typically borderline PD), and the connection from PDs to trauma histories and attachment theory -- there's a lot there.

The one comment I'd make is that most of your resources in the professional literature are tying back to Feldman. Are there any other researchers looking at this yet? That would help establish it as a new-but-growing field, rather than just one guy's crazy idea, however well supported. Note that other investigators may not be using the specific phrase "Munchausen by Internet" -- the term Munchausen is not used much in current literature because of the pejorative connotations -- most people use Factitious Disorder. Also, look for synonyms for "internet" -- I did a search just now on "(munchausen or factitious) and (internet or cyber or google or online) and got a number of hits from other researchers. (I don't think this is the right place to post a bibliography, but if you want me to send you the references through your talk page, just ask.)

With respect to online communities and their psychological features, another really nice source is John Suler's website (google his name and psychology of cyberspace). Mirafra (talk) 16:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

That's helpful. I am away from my databases right now, but when I get a chance I will go again on Medline and other databases. I am always open to huge lists of bibliographies on my talk page. I'll do what I can to find each source. Thanks for reading the article. --Moni3 (talk) 21:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

behavioral medicine

As a bachelor of science in psychology I recently was looking on the internet for work in which to gain experience as I pursue furthering my education. One group of clinicians wants people who have college classes in "behavioral health". So I looked all over the internet for a definition, and it seems that even colleges don't agree on a universal, empirical definition, nor could I find a scientific study nor definition that made it clear, as it relates to clinical practice. There seems to be alot of either ignorance due to a lack of empirical preciseness or smoke and mirrors involved.

It would be very helpful if professionals practicing or experimenting in this field, as it relates to psychology, especially, to write a scientifically testible definition and show the scientific evidence that this field of study, as it relates to treatment in a clinical setting has any empirical evidence as to it's merit. Is this just a clever word to justify payment for unproven counseling methods? Or maybe, like cognitive-behavioral therapy (and unlike most forms of therapy), has it been scientifically proven to be more effective than advice from various non-professionals?

As people become more informed they are going to want to find out what really works. If this really works better than the placebo effect, it would be a good time and place to bring people in through references to studies proving it. If it is just another vague concept promoted to make money, it's a good time for someone to save people from useless, expensive therapy that only lightens the burden of peoples' wallets. ( I'm not against faith-based or holistic approaches: I just think people should know if something works or if it's experimental or worse: unprovable, before wasting time and money on it, oblivious to the lack of any reason to buy it.)Jmichael2525 (talk) 21:03, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

what ? Earlypsychosis (talk) 08:44, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree, this is hard to understand, and sounds awfully close to POV pushing / conspiracy theorizing to me. I've generally heard "behavioral health" used in two major contexts.

The first is with the emphasis on "behavioral" -- that is, it's the health of your behaviors, and it's more-or-less synonymous with "mental health." The notion is, I think, trying to get away from the idea of evaluating people's thoughts, sort of saying, "It doesn't fundamentally matter how you think or feel, if your behaviors aren't causing any clinically significant impairment in social, occupational, or academic functioning, then no harm, no foul." Many people come to mental health practitioners apprehensive about too much in-depth psychological exploration, and are really just looking for a change in behavior that will make them happier.

(And, by the way, this is completely okay, conspiracy theories notwithstanding. Mental health practitioners generally don't make a living from forcing people to undergo therapy that they don't want (I've worked with many people who are mandated to therapy by the court system, and we still had to find a way for us to agree on something that they did want that I could provide). Therapy has been shown, through tons and tons of research on the therapeutic alliance, to work best when the client feels that the therapist is someone who understands and accepts them and can come to some basic agreement with them on what the problem is and what they're going to do about it together (read Bordin, Horvath, etc). If the client wants brief therapy focused around specific problem behaviors, then that's what they should do. Some therapists aren't good at that, but no one is good at everything, and it's no shame for us to refer people who need a different therapeutic model from the ones we're good at. That's a normal part of how therapists do business. It's a business that tends to work on personal referrals, so grouchy ex-clients are not good for a therapist's bottom line.)

The second is with the emphasis on "health" -- that is, it's the behavioral aspects of your health. Health psychology is quite a big field, especially as we get more and more scientific evidence that Descartes's mind-body split is really quite artificial. Mental health and physical health are seriously intertwined. So, for instance, a behavioral health practitioner might be someone who works with people who want to improve a health behavior (quit smoking, increase exercise, etc). Or they might be someone who gets referrals from medical practices (or even works within a hospital), helping people with the mental health aspects of adjusting to serious illness.

As far as your question, this has little to do with WP, but I'll answer it anyway. If you're looking to set up a clinical internship (which, if you're thinking about training as a clinician, is a really good idea, both to get a sense for yourself about whether this is for you, and to show an admissions department that you know what you're getting into and are willing to pursue your interests), and people are asking for prospective interns to have coursework in "behavioral health," I think your best strategy would be to inquire directly from the people offering the internship. :::: If you are applying to a health-psych environment (cancer ward, etc), then they probably mean the second definition, and so they might be asking if you have a course in, say, Health Psychology or Mind-Body Connections or somesuch -- something where you studied the interrelationship of physical health and mental health. If you are applying to a general mental-health kind of place, chances are good they mean that they'd like to see some kind of coursework along the lines of Theories of Counseling, or something. Maybe even Theories of Personality. What they're probably concerned about is that someone who has a background primarily in neuroscience, rats-in-mazes, etc, may not know much about how to work with actual clients.

But really, contact them directly and ask. People who work in the helping professions tend to be people who like to help. My experience has been that clinicians tend to be very approachable by telephone and email. Say briefly and politely, "I'm thinking of applying to your internship, but I want to make sure that I have the experience you're looking for. I'm not sure how you're defining "coursework in behavioral health." I have courses in X, Y, and Z, and I am very interested in the work of your site around Q (whatever the problem is that they primarily work with, whatever it was that led you to want to apply there in the first place). Would this meet your requirements?" I've done this in various forms many times myself, as part of my doctoral training. Sometimes the answer is yes, sometimes it's no, but I've never gotten a non-response, nor have I ever gotten a nasty response. Hope this helps.

(Oh, and by the way, actually, almost all forms of therapy have been shown to be effective. Explore a bit!) Mirafra (talk) 13:21, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

August 2009

Habits and automaticity

I've done some work on habit formation, which was previously a redirect to trial and error, which seemed to me a rather different topic. However, I was wondering whether a 3-way merger between habit formation, automaticity and habit (psychology) might be an idea. At present, we have three rather stubby articles, but maybe combined we might have the beginnings of one good article! Anyway, more discussion on the Talk page for habit formation, and any input to improve that article most welcome. Bondegezou (talk) 09:38, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion needs your help

Suggestion is a short article based on a 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica Eleventh Edition article and with no cites. Anybody care to do anything with this? -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 12:09, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Looks to me like it should just be merged into Hypnosis. Mirafra (talk) 15:10, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Fascinating the evolution over language in 100 years - must check the OED on it as the use of suggestion as some sort of subliminal mind control is archaic (reminds me of the third level magic user spell in 1e AD&D hehehe). Merge looks a good idea. Best way is to go through the procedure then....Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:56, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

RfC on the Rorschach test: fresh eyes needed

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rorschach test images. Should Rorschach test display all ten images used in the test and the common responses, or should we act on psychologists' concerns that doing so undermines the test? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 17:05, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

This is now more than just the Rorschach. Several editors are starting to put test materials on other psychological tests, such as Rey Complex Figures, and Wisconsin Card Sort. The norms for these tests will be invalidated by this, as although some of the material is out on the net, nothing is quite as accessible as Wikipedia. This is going to mean that Neuropsych departments have to allocate more budget money to different tests, or that services will be reduced and patient care will suffer. The argument is that people deserve access to information, but I think the comparison is to medications. We put information about medications out there, but we keep the medications in a locked cabinet. Discussing the test is one thing - putting the test materials on is another. It is not necessary for the purpose of the discussion. These tests are used to help with patient care. Surely that is our bottom line in real life - why shouldn't it stay that way on wiki?--Vannin (talk) 16:06, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Please come over, then, and sign the RFC. Most of the voices are from folks who have no professional connection to the tests and who refuse to acknowledge the harm that they are doing to the field, or who openly state that they feel they are striking some kind of blow for the freedom of test subjects by interfering with the field. We're being rather efficiently shouted down. Mirafra (talk) 16:43, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I was rigorously trained in various Rorschach scoring techniques in graduate school and during my internship, but never use it as a professional. Since there are in infinite number of ways the results can be interpreted, it is not suitable for forensic work. A test in a similar situation is the Bender-Gestalt. There have been available for many years books on how to answer psychological test questions and interpret results, primarily some very good ones written for attorneys to use in cross examination to discredit psychological testimony in court. Psychologists are aware and usually able to detect false test results through experience and by comparison of test outcomes with ancillary information, other test data and behavioral observations. I am not overly concerned about the Rorschach cards, but I might worry about what is made of the information. It would not be true to say, for example, that such and such respond to Card I means so and so. That would be misleading to the general reader. If the Rorschach is going to be used as a "test case" for a general policy on Wikipedia about disclosing test data, then perhaps a more general discussion is warranted. I don't think Wikipedia wants to be in the business of offering medical recommendations nor suggestions on how to answer specific psychological tests. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 17:10, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with much of what you say. (I'm trained in the Rorschach Comprehensive System, and I like it a lot -- I find it extremely useful in evaluations, when taken in the context of lots of other data (tests, interviews, questionnaires, etc).) I know lots of forensic psychologists who use it extensively, actually, and it holds up quite well.

The problem is that folks who aren't psychologists are basically saying (loudly and repeatedly) that they don't care a fig for the idea that this could be in any way harmful, either to people who might read the information or to the profession as a whole that might have its instruments screwed up. They claim that they're not offering medical advice and that the existing disclaimer to that effect means that they don't have to restrain themselves in any way. The information they've put up is currently a sort of bizarre amalgamation of correct info, historical info that is not current, correct info that was misunderstood by the layperson who read it on Google Books and thus turned it into incorrect info, accusations from Wood and Lilienfeld that have been quite well refuted in the professional literature, and some stuff that seems to be made up of whole cloth. But, of course, if we help make the information less confusing and more accurate, it's even more of a violation of test security.

They've made it clear that they're not just planning to attack the Rorschach, but other psych tests as well. Unfortunately, there are a number of very loud voices here, and the psychologists are getting shouted down. This is tragic, really.

I would love it if we could get there to be some kind of WP policy (a narrowly-tailored limitation to WP:NOTCENSORED, like WP:BLP) that would say that WP will respect the societal need for secure tests. But I don't understand the innards of WP policy-making, and the fact that the psychologists are a small minority of people involved, despite the fact that we're the ones who actually know what we're talking about, is really working against us. Any ideas? Mirafra (talk) 18:20, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

As I commented to you at your talk page, to make a policy you need to draft it, refine it, and then propose it to the community at large. This is done by placing the {{proposed}} tag on it (after you have finished writing it) and then add it to Template:Cent (central discussions broadcast template). I would advise waiting for the current Rorschach test images RFC to run its course and ensure you take into consideration the arguments for and against raised therein. –xeno^talk 18:37, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, yes, I think it's clear that I should let that run before doing anything else. But I would also like help from more experienced Wikipedians in terms of understanding the culture and how these things have been done or not done in the past. It's not clear to me that there are enough psychs around here, though, to answer the large crowds of non-psychs. Mirafra (talk) 19:16, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the above statement that the danger is that the information in these article on tests "a sort of bizarre amalgamation of correct info, historical info that is not current, correct info that was misunderstood by the layperson who read it on Google Books and thus turned it into incorrect info", as are many popular books on the subject. There is the implication that there is something "wrong" with the tests, when everything depends on the qualifications of the professionals using the tests. I don't think Wikipedia articles should offer speculations on the meanings of specific test results. This would be "pop psychology" at its worst. —Mattisse (Talk) 19:37, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Merge discussion on Cerebral_Hemispheric_Dominance and Lateralization_of_brain_function

Editors who are part of the project might be interested in this discussion about merging Cerebral Hemispheric Dominance and Lateralization of brain function. Edhubbard (talk) 19:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Request for Comment on Outrageous Betrayal

A Request for Comment has started regarding the article Outrageous Betrayal, comments would be appreciated at Talk:Outrageous Betrayal. Cirt (talk) 05:36, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Merge discussion on Choice blindness and Introspection illusion

I welcome comments on my proposal to merge Choice blindness into Introspection illusion MartinPoulter (talk) 15:19, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Featured article review on Parapsychology

I have found evidence of original research and abuse of sources in this article, and have suggested it for featured article review here: Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Parapsychology/archive1 Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 193 FCs served} 18:53, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Compartmentalization (psychology)

Hey, people! I won't talk much, because my English is poor, but there is an article Compartmentalization (psychology), which is full of disinformation. Please, sombody, fix it! Thank you. --Kovani (talk) 08:54, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Merge discussion on Lake Wobegon effect and Illusory superiority

I'm pretty certain these two articles should be merged. I'm less certain which term should take priority. Comments are invited. MartinPoulter (talk) 18:21, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Dorothy Rowe

Anyone from the UK heard of this person? Zero exposure here in Oz. Article could do with some independent sourcing. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:44, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Haven't heard of her in the USA, either. Here's her website: ^[1]. She self-describes as world-renowned, but does not list any peer-reviewed articles, just books and popular-press articles. The text on the website leads me to suspect that she has been involved in a lot of conflict with the media. "Her work liberates us from the bamboozling lies that mental health experts and politicians tell in order to keep us in our place and themselves in power," is prominent on the front page. I agree, definitely needs more independent sourcing. Was she or her publicist the one who put the page up? Mirafra (talk) 14:44, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

she is well known to the clinical psychology community in the UK. Writes for media and writes popular books. Featured in the june 2009 BPS monthly publication The Psychologist volume 22 no 6 and often in the Clinical Psychology Forum (a BPS (peer reviewed ?) publication). Wrote the introduction to Against Therapy by Jeffery Masson ISBN 0-00-637387-9. One of her recent books won some sort of prize...cant recall which one. See my additions on her site. Earlypsychosis (talk) 23:24, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, quite well known. You can buy her books in ordinary bookshops too. Books about depression and understanding your crappy childhood and so on. Fainites ^barleyscribs 23:22, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Relevant AfDs

Two relevant AfDs to this project are Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/60 Minutes and the Assassination of Werner Erhard, and a related article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jane Self. Cirt (talk) 14:57, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

AfD related to psychology

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barbados Group. Thank you, Cirt (talk) 05:06, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Attachment theory

This article has been nominated for FA. Fainites ^barleyscribs 23:20, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Relevant RSN thread

Please see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#60_Minutes_and_the_Assassination_of_Werner_Erhard. Cirt (talk) 15:15, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

September 2009

Intensive short-term dynamic psychotherapy

I'd like to add this page to Project Psychology: ISTDP

Not quite sure how. Help?

Rtarzwell (talk) 04:37, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

If you go onto the Project page and look under the "Templates" section there is a template which gives you the big box you can see there. Copy the template and then paste it at the top of the article talkpage.Fainites ^barleyscribs 16:35, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Pantyology

Pantyology - anything useful here, perhaps for a merger or redirect? Rd232 ^talk 13:09, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Frankly, no. The refs seem to be a self-published essay describing pantyology as "an informal school of thought", and a whimsical slide show in an online lifestyle magazine. MartinPoulter (talk) 16:04, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Is nobody interested in helping with Wiki psychology articles anymore ?

I have almost single handedly done tons of work recently on workplace bullying, narcissism, personal boundaries and ( I hope) psychological manipulation. It would be nice if someone else helped, preferably an academic. --Penbat (talk) 20:01, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree it can feel like a ghost town. There are several editors actively improving articles, but Psychology is such a big and varied area we're spread out and rarely do you have a plurality of active editors on a single article, outside the really controversial topics. You're writing about interesting topics there, so please keep at it! I don't have any expertise in those areas, but I can copy-edit when I get a moment. MartinPoulter (talk) 16:22, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for moral support. It is deeply interesting and far reaching stuff. Everybody ought to learn about this sort of stuff but not much of it gets into mainstream media - for example the word "narcissism" is rarely used in mainstream media. I have just created emotional blackmail. There is tons more that could be done - for example "narcissism" could be split up into about 10 separate articles as it is such a far reaching concept. --Penbat (talk) 16:55, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Martin. It's often a pretty solitary job here. People do help out with peer reviews though and I found putting things up for GA was a way to get third party input.Fainites ^barleyscribs 17:06, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of which, anyone who is interested in Jung should check out Red Book (Jung) btw. I don't think it is even assessed yet. It'll be published mid October, and it'd help to have some watchers on it before it gets slammed. JoeSmack ^Talk 17:40, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of Good Article reviews, I have nominated Confirmation bias. MartinPoulter (talk) 22:24, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it would help if people occasionally posted a note like Penbat's, just to let other editors know what's going on. Even if everyone's working on different articles, it's still nice to know that other people exist. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:31, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree, most wikiprojects fluctuate wildly in activity. And extra pairs of eyes are good. [User:Casliber|Casliber]] (talk · contribs) 00:02, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Why doesnt a single psychology academic in the whole world want to spend a bit of time helping to improve Wiki psychology articles ? I think Wiki is good for factual stuff but needs tightening up in social sciences.--Penbat (talk) 19:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia's psychology and psychiatry articles attract people with mental illnesses and people with strong "alternative" POVs -- frequently people that have nothing to do other than to argue. It's not a pleasant environment for experts. Additionally, some academic psychologists are unhappy with having to play be the same rules as everyone else. These are typically people that are treated practically like monarchs by colleagues and students, and then are offended when some 'uppity' Wikipedia editor says, "I don't care who you are. You have to produce a reliable source to back up this claim." It's not irrational of them to decide that their time is better spent elsewhere. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:16, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I understand your point. Mention no names, but there was certainly a scary administrator/editor around who scared off academics and non-academics a while back. But things are subdued at present. You would have thought a psychology student could be enticed at least. On Wikipedia there is lots of heavyweight material on things like Freud and psychoanalytic theory yet to me, more interesting stuff like personal boundaries and psychological manipulation were missed completely so i have created them myself. Also there is some quite bad existing stuff like assertiveness which needs a lot of improvement.--Penbat (talk) 19:44, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with WhatamIdoing. You can spend an inordinate amount of time battling this sort of thing with little or no help and you need the hide of a rhinocerous. The irritating thing is, if more psychology types took part the job would become easier and more pleasant. There's heaps of them on the list of participants but when I went looking for reviewers for a FAC article a while back it turned out many of them either never edited or no longer edited on psych articles as it was a thankless, hopeless task. Perhaps if people could get together to tackle one article or topic at a time.....Fainites ^barleyscribs 19:58, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes for some reason Aspergers got a lot of work done by various contributors a year or so ago. I have done quite a lot to improve narcissism. But much more could be done on it and it is a hugely important and far reaching concept. IMHO narcissism well deserves a big pooled effort. I think that one past, hot potatoe relating to narcissism was whether Vaknins book was valid material. I recently established that there are several narcissism gurus (see Google Scholar and Books) who have cited and recommended Vaknin's book. This completely undermines criticism of his book as not being noteworthy. At present Vaknins book is referenced on narcissism and malignant narcissism and there seems to be no appetite to remove it at present.--Penbat (talk) 20:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

It annoys the hell out of me that concepts such as narcissism and borderline are very important yet they are rarely if ever mentioned in the mainstream media. I understand the difficulties but social sciences are the weakest area in Wikipedia but are however very important. It would be nice if the top Wikipedia bods could commission some academics to review the material. Who put on all the heavyweight material about Freud and psychoanalytic theory for example ?--Penbat (talk) 20:29, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

If you get one as far as FA you can offer it to Veropedia where it will get an outside peer review (when Veropedia is up and running that is).Fainites ^barleyscribs 21:39, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) Another that could use some psychology eyeballs is the rouge test, which I started a few days ago. Any feedback is much appreciated. JoeSmack ^Talk 06:32, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the psychology articles in general most of the ground has been covered. Many articles are good yet they still attract quite a lot of interest with further edits. But some important articles have fallen by the wayside and get ignored for example assertion and the defense mechanisms and need much more work. It would help a lot if a psychology expert could assess where the weak spots are. Also an expert should be able to pick up inconsistencies in terminology across articles and have easy access to the necessary references. Recent I have been doing:

--Penbat (talk) 06:49, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

We'll get there Penbat. I guess it is a lull - there are several editors who are interested and have expertise in this area who are either not editing much or not editing much in psychology. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:08, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

October 2009

Manual of style

Is there a manual of style for psychology articles?--Nutriveg (talk) 16:55, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Just WP:MEDMOS. Now you mention it - a manual of style might be an idea. Fainites ^barleyscribs 18:44, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Psych undergraduates are routinely referred through to the APA Style Guide in first year. See below for ethical considerations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.206.250.184 (talk) 16:34, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Pyotr Gannushkin

Pyotr Gannushkin had big template of the doubtable branch called socionics hanged to his right. I've reverted. Probably such templates are hung on the pages of other psychologists too. --CopperKettle 15:26, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Forensic Psychotherapy

I want to revise and expand the page on Forensic Psychotherapy. This is a highly interesting but somewhat contentious area which has been subject more than most areas of psychology, to the effects of political and social change. I want to expand the article giving some description of this background and then putting competing therapies into some context. At present the article says that most therapy is CBT and psychodynamic approaches are rubbish and that is not particularly balanced. How do I go about doing this, just do it, put my drafts up her or what. I am a Forensic Psychotherapist working in London.Daffyd Jones (talk) 07:20, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I've replied on your talkpage with some links and things. Just click on your "talk" link immediately after your name here. Fainites ^barleyscribs 17:23, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Weird stuff from Martin Kantor at Psychopathy

Penbat (talk · contribs) has recently added to Psychopathy several sections apparently based on a book by Martin Kantor which state, among other things, that "too many teachers blur the distinction between teaching and proselytizing" and that people who download copyrighted files from peer-to-peer networks are "enabling psychopaths". I removed them; Penbat reverted saying that it looks like I don't know much about the subject matter. Well, that's true, I don't. Can someone else take a look at this? Penbat has also made many other edits to the article including some deletions. -- BenRG (talk) 20:55, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments about Martin Kantor as being just a self-help author are outrageous. He is a long standing psychiatrist and clinical professor. He has written about 15 books on various aspects of psychiatry. I have his book "THE PSYCHOPATHY OF EVERYDAY LIFE: HOW ANTISOCIAL PERSONALITY DISORDER AFFECTS ALL OF US" in front of me. The book has loads of academic citations to gurus like Cleckley, Hare and Millon. What he does do is cover an interesting perspective on psychopaths relating to how they manifest themselves in everyday life. There is almost nothing in the book that can be considered "self help" or advice and I havent mentioned anything in Wikipedia that can be considered self help or advice. I have however included a list of vulnerabilities in the victim exploited by psychopaths which are important in understanding how the psychopaths mind works. It also ties in with Vulnerability And the concept of Enabling is important as is overlapping psychiatric conditions. Where Kantor does cover treatment in his books it is generally at the level of psychiatric professionals. A link to all his books is here:

[6]

I dont think i have made many changes to the rest of the psychopathy article except I deleted 2 paragraphs of what i considered to be some long winded waffle, I moved some text out to the separate PCL-R article and i deleted an unfounded and uncited paragraph. In all cases I explained my reasoning.--Penbat (talk) 21:09, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm still hoping that someone else will come forward to deal with this.

Penbat, I don't understand how you can take this guy seriously—the quotes above are such obvious nonsense. However, if you persist, I will just have to ask for evidence that Kantor is taken seriously by psychologists. He doesn't appear to be notable. -- BenRG (talk) 13:44, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

You have the cheek to blank out extremely valuable sections such as "Differential diagnosis: associated and overlapping conditions" (which is also in all the individual personality disorder articles as well) and "the Thought Processes of psychopaths" and two other sections because you think two lines in particular are nonsense:

"too many teachers blur the distinction between teaching and proselytizing" and that people who download copyrighted files from peer-to-peer networks are "enabling psychopaths".

You yourself admit that you dont know much about the subject while I have been studying the subject for years. It says a lot about your misunderstanding of psychopaths (which i suspect is probably based on various mythologies). I totally resent criticism of Kantors credibility as an expert in his field. I can easily explain the two lines you picked out except i would be in danger of giving you a lecture in psychopathy. It baffles me how you can possibly not understand it. Psychopathy is a diverse concept. Much of Kantors book covers mild psychopaths, not the axe wielding mass murderer types. Kantor bravely explains how psychopaths have a pernicious effect on very day life in all fields of human activity. It has nothing to do with moral judgements, simply to describe dysfunctional behavior where it occurs which he considers to inspired by psychopathic motives and help by unwitting enablers. For example he criticises governments, individuals and even psychiatrists themselves. He doesnt have a particular agenda as such against any one group or another. Your complaint seems to display your own prejudices and sensitivities. You dismiss the work of an expert in his field for over 20 years as "obvious nonsense" while you prefer your view and you have already admitted you dont know much about the subject.--Penbat (talk) 14:25, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

BenRG stated "added ... based on a book by Martin Kantor", and later explained "He doesn't appear to be notable", and asked "Can someone else take a look at this?". Here's my outside view:

Upon reviewing WP:NOTE, I see no evidence that Kantor is not notable.
If you can cite elements of WP:NOTE that challenge Kantor's notability, please do so.
If you cannot do so, it is inappropriate to remove article text (from here or any other article) that is sourced to Kantor.
If you can find other sources that provide a contradictory or alternate viewpoint on the text at hand, it is appropriate to work that information into the article (assuming it is not WP:FRINGE and not given WP:UNDUE weight).

I offer these comments based on my wish to see the encyclopedia quality be maintained, and to avoid disputes amongst editors. I'd be glad to offer my assistance on this matter. Cheers, --4wajzkd02 (talk) 15:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

4wajzkd02, I appreciate your message drawing attention to these points. I think your involvement might be helpful; I expect others may consider the matter closed. I was motivitated to seek a resolution to the issue having been concerned about the quality of the article because of what I believed to be WP:UNDUE weight being given to Kantor's views.

However I wonder whether the baby might have been thrown out with the bathwater. I will be the first to admit that i encouraged reversion out of expedience, especially once a consensus seemed to have been established although I might not do so with such enthusiasm in future. Having made some effort to collaborate to move things forward on one section that is now also reverted, who lives by the sword, dies by it... :-).

Regarding the material itself ... it seems to me to fall into two categories, although I may have misunderstood these definitions...:

"Secondary source" information, where Kantor is citing other people's work on Psychopathy. In this sense, he is "at least one step removed from an event.... [relying] for facts and opinions on primary sources, often to make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims....Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from secondary sources." "(WP:NOR) Furthermore the 'secondary source' information he cites, may have "received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject". Among other things, secondary source information includes the information on the extent to which Psychopathy co-occurs with other disorders.

"Primary source" : i.e. Kantor's own views. These do not appear to have "received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject"WP:NOTE. It also seems that they haven't apparently been "referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory" (WP:FRINGE).

At least two people have tried to find significant coverage (not by Kantor) of Kantors own views. Despite the debate attracting a lot of attention, no significant coverage of Kantor's views on psychopathy has been uncovered.

"Maybe I used the wrong method, but I couldn't find a single peer reviewed article on psychopathy by Kantor in Medline, or google scholar. Although there are lots of books, which do not appear to be well cited.Finereach (talk) 00:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)"

"Like others, I did a google scholar search on Martin Kantor. As far as I can tell, he has only published a single peer-reviewed article....in 1978 ... as second author, and it has not been cited often. His books receive even fewer citations. To me, it is clear that Martin Kantor has had no influence on the field. His work certainly does not merit entire sections, and I doubt that it merits inclusion in this article in any form. ... I'd also like to call attention to a quote from The Psychopathy of Everyday Life (via the google book link, Ch 2, p.11): "Though the psychopaths of everyday life are everywhere ... they generally escape the notice of the extant scientific literature." In this quote, he suggests that the main argument in his book is not based on scientific research. To include that argument here clearly violates NPOV. In my opinion, his arguments are also fringe and not noteworthy. Neramesh (talk) 06:10, 2 November 2009 (UTC)"

For these reasons, my view was and is that it may be appropriate to reference Kantor only as a secondary source for the stuff which can also be verified with reference to other sources, but not as a primary source for those theories that are his alone. The real difficulty here is that the Kantor sections present a lot of material that seems at first (and second) glance to be Kantor's WP:FRINGE opinion mixed in with information that could either be mainstream secondary source information, or more (primary source) fringe information.

I would be interested to see whether you think it is reasonable to invoke the principle of reducing the influence in the article (WP:UNDUE) regardless of Kantor's notability, his views (primary source) do not seem to constitute ~10% of knowledge on psychopathy.Finereach (talk) 22:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure you guys have been reading the same book as me? The theory behind the book is heavily underpinned by the work of the top psychopath gurus (Hare, Cleckley, Millon etc). In the book, the work of these gurus and others are frequently cited by Kantor. For example, Kantor's "psychopaths of everyday life" is very much underpinned by Cleckley's "mild psychopath" and Hare's "subcriminal psychopath" - other gurus also expound the same concept. The same concept is also well supported elsewhere within the Wikipedia psychopath article itself with the explanation of the primary/secondary psychopath distinction, the PCL-R checklist and the psychopath/sociopath distinction. Far from being "fringe", Kantor is very much in the mainstream. Check this link out http://www.helium.com/items/1503467-is-narcissism-normal The link supports my point that Kantor's views are closely aligned with Hare's and Cleckley's and Kantor is considered worthy enough to be mentioned alongside them. --Penbat (talk) 13:02, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Finereach has done a great job identifying where Kantor's book may be useful (e.g., as a secondary source on other research) and distinguishing the useful material from Kantor's non-notable editorializing. Penbat, do you have access to Hare, Cleckley, and Millon? Since they cover similar topics and are more notable, it may be better to base the wikipedia article on their work rather than Kantor's. You could also base the article on Kantor's summary of other people's work. However, in that approach, care must be taken to distinguish Kantor's editorializing and his summary of other work.

Also, do you have any access to articles from scientific journals? Ideally, a lot of the wikipedia article would be based on journal articles. Journal articles go through peer review, which helps to weed out unsupported opinions. By citing other researchers and journal articles, it should be possible to avoid many of the objections that have been made. Neramesh (talk) 15:29, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the only possible issue is down to the limitations of paraphrasing where inevitably some of the meaning in the original uncondensed text will be lost. I was going to try to refine my paraphrasing anyway. To properly understand my paraphrased text and pick up relevant background contextual information, it is necessary to read the book. It would be nice if somebody else would buy the book and try paraphrasing it a bit better.

Cleckley's seminal work is The Mask of Sanity. In that Wiki article you will see a link that provides a free PDF download of the book. Kantor closely aligns himself with Hare and Cleckley etc by liberally citing their work. I think that your other points such as whether a Wiki source is peer reviewed or not has all sorts of associated problematic issues, too lengthy to explain here, and is a red herring. Anyway administrator User:4wajzkd02 has already ruled on this issue.--Penbat (talk) 18:36, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Admins don't get to "rule" on content issues Penbat. 4wajzkd02 is just offering his view. Fainites ^barleyscribs 22:56, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I have said several times, to understand the background context, you need to read the book and it looks like i am the only person who has done so. Kantor closely aligns himself with the top psychopath gurus in the world - Millon, Cleckley and Hare. Without these gurus, the modern concept of psychopathy wouldnt exist. Kantor is a highly qualified psychiatrist with strong experience in academia and he has vast clinical experience. He builds on the work of the aforementioned gurus. As i previously mentioned, i was endeavoring to refine my paraphrasing anyway and it may well be possible to work in some references from others such as Cleckley, Hare and Millon as they have covered similar ground. I dont have any problem with that but Rome wasnt built in a day. I could write a long long essay supporting my case, including the rather basic point that I seem to be the only person who has actually read Kantor's book and knows the background. I will shortly be declaring this dispute finished and I will be restoring all the Kantor material with the objective of improving on it over time. It would be rather nice if somebody else would buy the book and help in trying to represent the book as accurately as possible as there are limitations to my attempts at paraphrasing sections of it. If anybody really wants to labour this dispute I am quite prepared to, for example, explain the complexity of issues relating to how well individual sources are or arent peer reviewed etc etc, but i suspect that this dispute would go on for ever if i did. --Penbat (talk) 17:33, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

If Martin Kantor really aligns himself so closely with the "gurus", then there is no reason to cite Martin Kantor at all. Instead, cite the work by the gurus. Citing work by gurus doesn't make him a guru. If there is an argument in Martin Kantor's work that the gurus didn't make themselves, then its notability is highly questionable. Working such an argument into the article will invite WP:Undue and WP:Fringe disputes and deletions.

You have not provided any convincing evidence that he is notable. You provided a single link to a website where people self-publish editorials. Furthermore, we have offered strong evidence that he is NOT notable in academia: he has made no substantial contribution to the scientific literature and his books have been ignored by academics. You have not rebutted this evidence. Until you provide evidence that he or his work is notable in academia (see WP:academics), there is no justification for including his work as a primary source. If you want to continue this dispute, then I suggest that we summarize the evidence on the Psychopathy talk page and ask for a vote to gauge consensus. Neramesh (talk) 18:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Are you for real ? To explain the obvious - there are a huge number of entirely valid self-help books written by psychiatrists for example how to about how to tackle being abused (see Amazon for example). These books are respected as being authoritative and useful by members of the public. The psychiatrist build on their training, research and clinical experience. Many of these books are listed as sources in Wikipedia. Kantor has significantly more academic creditial than many published psychiatrists. Kantor's books are pitched at a more academic level and are generally written both for the general public and professional reader. Unlike most of the books pitched at the general public, he explains the underying theory behind his work in detail with reference to existing theory and other illuminaries. He has chosen to concentrate on writing books, rather than write academic papers, drawing on his own research and his own clinical experience.

You seem to be unaware of Kantors background. http://borngay.procon.org/viewsource.asp?ID=008372

He has a significantly stronger academic background than many authors of psychiatric books - for example he has been for example directly responsible for the training of new psychiatrists.

Perhaps once you have demolished Kantor you could demolish the following psychiatrists/psychologists who have written books as well: Derber, Downs, Lachkar, Lasch, Brown, Schoenwolf, Banja, Hurlbert, Larsson etc

see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissism#Other_forms_of_narcissism

and thats just for starters.

And what about Bancroft here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_violence#Myths

--Penbat (talk) 20:15, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Please, let's just stick to putting a well researched and properly weighted article together. Here's a good start: [7] cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 20:32, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Ethical considerations

I'm all for free and ready information, however, psych editors must realise the ethical considerations inherent to this sort of information being freely available. Seriously, this stuff can hurt sufferers of mental illnesses if it's not handled well. Reciting DSM criteria from the DSMIV (a text that's formulated specifically for psychological and psychiatric practitioners and sold through specialist bookstores - I worked at one) isn't perhaps as tactful as it could be.

Take a look at this, and compare to the wikipedia article. Bear in mind that I suffer from BPD, and know full well how devastating the language of a Wikipedia article can be.

http://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/publications/borderline-personality-disorder-fact-sheet/index.shtml

And this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borderline_personality_disorder

I have severe doubts as to the ethical nature, and practicality of such articles in providing useful and clear information to the masses. If anything, the current wikipsych project is promoting stigma and misguided attempts at self-diagnosis. I suggest that this entire area needs a massive rethink, and some attention from WikiHQ.

Well User talk:203.206.250.184, DSM is freely available, as are any number of books on the various facets of psychiatric diagnoses and psychological concepts. You are right that articles are not supposed to provide sort of do-it-yourself diagnosis lists. However, they are supposed to provide clear and accurate information. The quality of articles in this area is very mixed though. If there are any in particular that have caught your eye that you think could be better expressed, like BPD, you are free to edit. It's usually best to discuss any proposed significant changes on the talkpage first though. I will put links on your talk page for you, outlining the basic policies on writing and sourcing articles. Best of luck.Fainites ^barleyscribs 22:31, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

November 2009

John Neulinger 2

Could I get an independent reassessment of John Neulinger? I believe it is at least C-class. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 06:20, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

problems with the list

This list has song titles and albums listed as people with bipolar disorder. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.237.11.163 (talk) 05:24, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Eugenics and Psychometrics

Information about the eugenistic movement and the use and boom of Psychometric tests in the first dacades of XX century should be added, also information about their use in Nazi Germany, US and UK during the same time with racist objectives. The work of Arthur Jensen published in the Educational Harvard Review and the Pioneer Fund are important historical facts that should be added to the Psychometric's article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.159.7.118 (talk) 02:59, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Please help improve the Psychopathy article

Seeking contributors to improve the Psychopathy article. The main discussion is here; please leave all comments there, or at Talk:Psychopathy. Thanks. Alamanth (talk) 15:45, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

To those concerned with the Psychopathy page - User:Alamanth was blocked on 13th November 09 as a sock puppet of banned user Zeraeph. Fainites ^barleyscribs 15:33, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Zeraeph --Penbat (talk) 16:02, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Confirmation bias now a GA

Having been rewritten since August of this year, Confirmation bias (mid-importance for this project) has now been reviewed as a Good Article. Thanks to User:Neramesh for being such a patient and informed reviewer. I intend to take it on towards FA status, and plan to use material from the article to improve adjacent articles such as Illusory correlation and Attitude polarization. MartinPoulter (talk) 13:14, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Help needed on Megalomaniac paranoia

I have a deletion request Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Megalomaniac paranoia which needs more opinions. As i understand it, megalomania is still a commonly used word by the general public as a synonym for grandiosity but ceased to be recognised as a medical condition a long time ago if it ever was (nothing in DSM or ICD). There are plenty of problems with both megalomania and Megalomaniac paranoia articles--Penbat (talk) 13:56, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Peer review for book Help at Any Cost

I put the article about the book Help at Any Cost up for peer review. Input would be appreciated, at Wikipedia:Peer review/Help at Any Cost/archive1. Cirt (talk) 00:13, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Renaming Grandiose delusions as Grandiosity

Any comments ? Talk:Grandiose_delusions --Penbat (talk) 12:43, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Self-Knowledge Page

Hi there, does anyone want to swing by the new page I've written and perhaps give it a once-over? Ratings would be appreciated :-)
Self-knowledge_(Psychology)
Garethlines (talk) 22:24, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey, good job! well referenced and comprehensive. I think once the sub-sections become paragraphs it would be a very good article. Unfortunately I have forgotten much of my social psy stuff so can't help too much at the moment. --The.Filsouf (talk) 17:06, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

It's a good start, with a very good choice of references. I suggest that the Introspection illusion and Illusory superiority articles are very relevant. It may be worth not just linking but summarising or copying some of the content. MartinPoulter (talk) 18:45, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

December 2009

Neuromusicology

I'm working on a new article and want to invite anyone knowledgeable about the field to add to it.

"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Schyler/Neuromusicology"

schyler (talk) 16:27, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

What's a "musica" ? Fainites ^barleyscribs 20:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Have you seen Biomusicology by the way? Fainites ^barleyscribs 20:07, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The article biomusicology contains a short outline of neuromusicology: "Neuromusicology studies the ‘brain areas involved in music processing, neural and cognitive processes of musical processing‘, and ‘ontogeny of musical capacity and musical skill'." (Reference: Wallin, Merker, and Brown, eds. (2000). "An Introduction to Evolutionary Musicology", The Origins of Music, p.5 f. ) This outline mirrors the common view on what the term means in the fields of cognitive musicology, systematic musicology, neuroscience (or cognitive neuropsychology), and biomusicology. Unfortunately, your draft article defines neuromusicology as "a branch of Neurology in which scientists determine the human origins and the neuro-pedagogy of musicans as well as researching the potential for healing through music." This is only partially correct. 1. Neuromusicology can not be described as a branch of neurology (neither via scope nor via method of the field). 2. The scope of your definition is definitely too narrow, even though research on music therapy is done in this field. 3. The discipline is not about determining the "human origins […] of musicians", rather research in comparative/evolutionary neurobiology plays a role for research into music capacity and the neural basis for music(al practice). 4. The links you give in your draft article refer to two pages of the BTCL, a project dealing with "paradise engineering", not neuromusicology. A more realistic reference to research in neuromusicology would be http://www.stefan-koelsch.de/papers_html.html.

If you are interested in the relevance of neural aspects of music for music therapy, and music-therapeutical ideas from neurology, please consider expanding the article Music therapy. --Morton Shumway (talk) 01:54, 19 June 2010 (UTC).

Peer review for book Brainwashing: The Science of Thought Control

I put the article about the book Brainwashing: The Science of Thought Control up for peer review. Input would be appreciated, at Wikipedia:Peer review/Brainwashing: The Science of Thought Control/archive1. Cirt (talk) 01:50, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject tagging

I am interested in tagging the talk pages of articles in the categories listed at User:Andrea105/Psychology categories with Template:WikiProject Psychology, if not already present, in the form {{WikiProject Psychology|class=|importance=}}, using my bot. Any comments? Andrea105 (talk) 00:15, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Where is the line drawn re some CAM therapies which seem to be in the list, and Category:Popular Psychology which isn't? At what point does something remain psychology - though unvalidated - or cease to be psychology for the purposes of this project? Fainites ^barleyscribs 22:58, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I excluded Category:Popular psychology because of the presence of articles, such as Astrology, which seemed only peripherally related to psychology. Some articles in the category do indeed seem to be within the project's remit, and could be manually tagged after appropriate confirmation. Alternative medicine therapies for mental health problems would seem to be appropriate for project tagging as the presence of the project template relates merely to the general subject matter, and makes no claim regarding scientific validity. Andrea105 (talk) 17:08, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

OK. I rather agree with you, however there are different views on this resulting in a very mixed picture. There's a huge grey area of stuff that's unvalidated for a variety of reasons, some practiced by some psychologists, some not, some stuff that's frankly pseudoscience and so on. For example, NLP which is pretty much an unvalidated pseudoscience, not developed by psychologists and not generally practiced by psychologists, appears in both the popular category and the psychology category. Astrology is in the popular psychology category but I can't think why. Surely it's more a religious belief thing. Attachment therapy is a discredited pseudoscience but it was developed by psychiatrists and psychologists, is still practiced by some psychologists. It was then discredited by psychologists and psychiatrists. However, it was removed from the psychology category because it is unvalidated. Parental alienation syndrome is in the psychology category but is a pretty much discredtited one-man band. I think this project needs to decide how things are categorised. For example, does the psychology project cover bad and out of date "psychology", if it is or was practised and expounded by psychologists and/or psychiatrists? (I am assuming here that the aim is to cover things accurately of course). Fainites ^barleyscribs 17:51, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Articles regarding "bad and out of date 'psychology'" benefit from the attention of mainstream psychology editors to maintain their neutrality. To remove such articles from the remit of the project contributes to a situation in which they become dominated by enthusiasts of non-mainstream practices. Andrea105 (talk) 21:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Agree. If psychologists aren't going to deal with the bad and out of date stuff, who is? Fainites ^barleyscribs 22:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not a member of this project, but I've reverted the bot's tagging of Talk:Statistics. I can understand most of the articles in Category:Psychometrics being tagged as part as this project, but that one seemed a bit odd. Feel free to overrule me. -- Avenue (talk) 02:28, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the reversion. There is an extremely small number of articles whose psychology-related categorization is somewhat tenuous... Andrea105 (talk) 03:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

FAR for Søren Kierkegaard

I have nominated Søren Kierkegaard for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Arsenikk ^(talk) 22:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Relevant AFD

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Core Knowledge Perspective. Thank you for your time, Cirt (talk) 08:57, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Asian fetish

There is a Talk:Asian fetish#Request for Comment and a Talk:Asian fetish#Proposal which may benefit from attention from interested and informed editors. Please comment there if you wish to participate. Шизомби (talk) 04:22, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

AfD for New England Institute of Religious Research

New England Institute of Religious Research (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New England Institute of Religious Research. Thank you for your time, Cirt (talk) 05:46, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Motivation

Talk:Motivation informs me that Motivation has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. And that's this WikiProject.

I'm no psychologist, but I had thought that motivation was a construct taken seriously, and even studied, within the kind of psychology that comes from peer-reviewed academic journals and university presses, and doesn't have large cover photos of bearded guru-writers who ask whether you moved your cheese to Mars or to Venus. Yet as I look through the Motivation article, I'm unable to suppress the thought that its content is, almost exclusively, barely sourced junk. Am I too critical, or do I understand even less of the mystical art of psychology than I suppose? -- Hoary (talk) 01:45, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

A quick hunt indicates the assessment was added here back in 2006. I don't think there's any organised programme of rating here. Fainites ^barleyscribs 10:13, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I just removed 'motivation' from the article on cyclomania for just the reason you explained above.

bpage (talk) 21:17, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Cyclomania: isn't that the conspicuous consumption by middle-aged men of ludicrously expensive bicycles? Oh, cyclothymia -- but I've never heard of that one.

The "Motivation" article recently came to my attention within a little effort of mine to rid WP of spam for one Douglas Vermeeren. Vermeeren, we were told, "has done extensive research into why many people fail to get to their goals". Who, you may wonder, is Vermeeren? Here he is. And this is about him. His "research" consists of amassing anecdotes by obscure slebs (not that famous ones would be more interesting or credible). But I suspect that Vermeeren's, uh, methodology is in no way unusual for the "human development" bog into which the "Motivation" article has fallen. -- Hoary (talk) 02:11, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Just as a matter of historical interest - it looked like this when the assessment was done. Fainites ^barleyscribs 13:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I see that Hoary has downgraded the article to Start, which I think is appropriate. A bigger problem than the lack of sources is the lack of coverage of essential topics -- motivation is a huge area and this article doesn't even scratch the surface of many aspects of it. Looie496 (talk) 17:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

In my most recent edit, I removed a link inserted five months ago, one that during those five months would have led anyone naive or stupid enough to click it to a pageful of drivel in some website whose top page tells us:

You Are About To Uncover / The Best Product For / Home Based Business Success. / Jobs Solving two major problems, / Lack of Direction / Lack of Money

An Online Wealth Building System / HELPS PEOPLE MAKE MONEY

Focuses on solving these two major problems that many people worldwide are facing today

LACK OF DIRECTION --- lack of motivation on a regular basis to reach their dreams

LACK OF MONEY --- lack of income on a regular basis to live the lifestyle you desire

This is merely one symptom of the awfulness of the article.

Another problem, I suspect, is that (so far as it's comprehensible) the article takes seriously what in the past would have been taken as genuine psychology (published in actual psychology journals, etc) and that was well intentioned but that today would be better classed as pseudoscience. -- Hoary (talk) 09:04, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out these issues: I think they stem from the fact that there are just not enough active editors on psychology articles. I think the answer for now is to be bold in removing junk. MartinPoulter (talk) 13:15, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

What WP needs are more people with (genuine) PhDs in (genuine) XYZ, where XYZ is psychology or any of a number of other subjects that aren't at all easy to understand and about which charlatans push twaddle to the naive. Unfortunately among my circle of friends is only one person with a real PhD in real psychology (and yes, publications in real journals), and she has a full-time job and a very young son. Still, I'll ask her this week. Yes, could there be a Project Psychology "invite an uninvolved, qualified psychologist to pitch in" campaign? -- Hoary (talk) 14:13, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I tried that once on attachment. They took one look at all the conflict/nutters/cyberbullying and pseudoscience promotion and backed off. More power to your elbow.Fainites ^barleyscribs 18:18, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Spiral Dynamics tagged as New Age

Hello, I think some help is needed in a dispute over unsourced insertions of the New Age category. The article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology. I made a request for comments in the Religion and Philosophy Project too. Thanks --Pevos (talk) 17:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

^ http://www.dorothyrowe.com.au/

[1] ttp://www.dorothyrowe.com.au/

[1]