[go: up one dir, main page]
Jump to content

Talk:Psychology

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former featured article candidatePsychology is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 16, 2007Featured article candidateNot promoted

  • Caption1
    Caption1
  • Caption2
    Caption2

Freud

[edit]

Hi Sxndrx2828, thanks for your edit. I did revert it due to some concerns about putting things in WP:VOICE, e.g. ‘brilliant’. See WP:WORDSTOWATCH and MOS:TONE.

Also, I’m a bit opposed to putting Freud above the ‘Beginnings of experimental psychology’ section. Freud is actually mentioned under the subheading below it ‘Consolidation and funding’. I’m not sure it’s due to have an entire subsection dedicated to Freud, who did not engage in experimental psychology, because he did not test his hypotheses. Zenomonoz (talk) 21:48, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Repetitive paragraph

[edit]

The first paragraph under "History" (starting with "The ancient civilizations of Egypt, Greece, China, India, and Persia ...") is repeated four paragraphs further down in the same section. The repetition should be deleted. ThorneHand (talk) 15:26, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 15:28, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Disambiguation

[edit]

The disambiguation links are getting to be a little much. Does anyone think we might need a psychology disambiguation page, a single place to put all these links? Jcbutler (talk) 03:07, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Jcbutler (talk) 23:18, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: University Writing 1020 Communicating Feminism MW 1 pm

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 15 January 2024 and 15 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Penelopearthur, Graceannke, Ananyashr (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Hrc77, Alyssalauri, Calliehoffman, LPauko.

— Assignment last updated by Cjsmith7 (talk) 23:02, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome to the Psychology wikipedia page. What are your plans for the page? Jcbutler (talk) 22:34, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Academic Writing II 2pm

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 2 March 2024 and 13 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): TheMostEver (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by TheMostEver (talk) 11:02, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome to the Psychology wikipedia page. What are your plans for the page? Jcbutler (talk) 22:35, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Defintion of Psychology in the Lede

[edit]

"Psychology is the study of the mind and behavior." - Frequently Asked Questions About APA. "Scientific" is omitted from the APA definition and it is highly likely that the editor who added "scientific" did so solely due to the philosophy effect. Therefore, "scientific" should be omitted in the lede too. Closetside (talk) 02:36, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I admit that there may have been some initial motivated reasoning, but I do think that my edit is an overall beneficial change to this article for the following reasons:
While is true the APA does not use "science" directly in the definition, for all practical purposes they are an institution that manages scientific research. Also, I'm not sure if the APA is not the best source for giving a precise definition of "psychology" because it is: a) restricted to America, and does not represent all people studying psychology worldwide, and b) this definition comes from an FAQ and there is not much reason to assume they put a lot of thought in the exact wording of their definition (at least relative to a real dictionary, which has the explicit purpose of finding the most precise definition that encapsulates the common usage of the word).
Now for why I believe the term "science" should be in the tagline. While it may be true that historically psychology has not been a very evidence-based practice, today it is very much so. When someone says they want to be a psychologist and practice psychology, they are most likely referring to getting a science-based education from an accredited university, practicing evidence-based techniques, and doing scientific studies on populations or individuals. Today, psychology is referred to as a social science (even in the social science article itself!) and I think it is important to make that clear in the definition so as to distinguish it from less empirically-focused fields of study such as parapsychology. It should be clear from the get-go that modern psychology is not a just "study", but a science.
Also the change would make the page consistent with the definitions on the pages of many other social science fields notable for their empirical & scientific nature including but not limited to: Economics, Sociology, Linguistics, Political science, and Anthropology.
I've never had a disagreement yet on this site so I'm not entirely sure how the process works, but I suppose I will leave this comment here for 12-24 hours and then re-edit the article? (I will make sure to change the citation this time tho to link to OED's definition instead of the APA's) Zyansheep (talk) 03:38, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing your well-thought out response to my objection, I agree with you. I think the best thing to do is to keep the APA definition and add scientific, and add the OED as another source. Psychology is a science and it is important that the article recognizes it as such from the get-go, in the lede. Closetside (talk) 04:12, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no consistent format of linking "science" in these articles, some do some don't. WP:OVERLINK suggests that it isn't. Considering both natural science and social science are linked within the same paragraph, the link is unnecessary. Closetside (talk) 04:21, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I thus removed links to science in several top-level articles. Science is an everyday word understood by virtually every English speaker. The policy against overlinking warns against such links. Closetside (talk) 04:36, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, let me do some research... okay... so you claim that Science is an everyday word understood by virtually every english speaker, but how does one *know* that?
How does one know which words are "everyday" and understood by *most* readers and which words aren't? And even if someone does know a word by some intuition (like many people know the word "science"), looking at the page "science" it seems like there is some nuance with the term that I wouldn't expect the average individual to know but is still a bit relevant to these pages (i.e. the idea of 3 branches of science, natural, social, and formal with different properties, some of which even go against the strict interpretation of the definition). But even if science was a totally common word like "bay" or "car" or "pop", the examples given in Wikipedia:OBVIOUS or Wikipedia:Lead section TT first sentence format or MOS:CONTEXTLINK seem to suggest that in the lead section, even those "everyday words" should be linked to anyway because they are notable to the term at hand (i.e. they are the "type" of the term).
More on overlinking: I can understand the surface-level rationale behind preventing overlinking: The overall goal of links is to "[allow] readers to deepen their understanding of a topic by conveniently accessing other articles" and having too many links can inhibit with the normal reading of the articles and make it harder for mobile readers. But the lead section is often the place where people first look for related concepts, and having to rely on links to science or social science further down the page in those articles seems to contradict the "conveniently accessing other articles" point. Also in support of this point, according to the research article cited in MOS:OVERLINK in note [c], the most used and popular links for wikis are at the start of the start of the article, suggesting that if there is any place where links should be more highly used, it should be the lead!
Also, on the point of consistent format of linking "science", my assertion of "consistent" was more an observation of the format of <Thing X> is a <Linked Term> which seems to be consistent with the guidance of the MOS. Zyansheep (talk) 13:46, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First, science is an everyday word. I challenge you to find one person who can maintain conversational English that does not know the word "science."
Second, see MOS:COMMONWORDS. Science is not re-defined for each scientific field, so no need to link it. Furthermore, linking to a sub-category within the hierarchy is fine (e.g. Gemara --> Talmud --> Rabbinic Judaism --> Judaism). That example is literally written in the MOS. Furthermore, most science articles do not link the discipline in the first sentence. Lastly, the average reader considers psychology (and any other scientific discipline) to be a general enough topic that does not need further generalization. Closetside (talk) 14:42, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is not a matter of whether they know of the word, it is a matter of whether they know the definition, and can intuit the implications of the definition in the context of what they are reading. I noted in my previous comment that there were some nuances of the definition that could be helpful for readers of Psychology to better ground their understanding of psychology. (such as there being various forms of science: social science, formal science, natural science, all with different conventions for evidence...).
On your second point I agree that you shouldn't link directly to the field for specific terms (for example, CBT should and does link to psychosocial, not psychology). But taking that to its logical conclusion, psychology should link to science or social science because those terms are two/one-levels up in the hierarchy. I'm confused though by your sweeping claims about what the "average reader" considers. How do you know who the average reader is?
Would a possible compromise be to have a link to "social science" instead of simply "science" as that would be the nearest related super-type? Zyansheep (talk) 20:49, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The only downside there is that: "Psychology is the social science of mind and behavior" doesn't quite have the same feel as "Psychology is the scientific study of mind and behavior" Zyansheep (talk) 20:51, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that psychology is both a natural and social science is related in the third sentence of the third paragraph. It is accessible to any casual reader. We don't need to overlink in the lede's first paragraph. We added scientific without a link; no further changes are necessary. Closetside (talk) 22:04, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think having a link to science in the lead would be even more accessible to any casual reader :)
I suspect we are at a standstill in discussion, and I'm not sure what exactly the process is for resolving disputes. Are we supposed to get a 3rd opinion? (Do you know the process here?) Zyansheep (talk) 23:32, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let's get at WP:Third opinion. The goal of the opinion is for us to come to an agreement. If not, we can have a WP:Request for Comment to get input of many outside editors and settle the dispute. Closetside (talk) 23:43, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let's try to arrive to an agreement even before we get the third opinion (I put in a formal request already).
The argument of increased accessibility does not hold water. For example in the Rexburg, Idaho article, Idaho is linked because the general reader is not familiar with Idaho, however the United States is not linked because the general reader is familiar with the US. This is consistent with WP:OL but not consistent with the increased accessibility argument, which would favor a link to the US to increase accessibility. Closetside (talk) 00:00, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but the point of increased accessibility only comes up when you have a term that people might want to access. The general reader may be familiar with the US, and furthermore, they are unlikely to need to be able to get to the US because superficial knowledge of the US is not required to understand the Idaho page (I assume). I don't think the Idaho article is analogous to this case, as I can very much imagine someone young hearing about psychology for the first time, looking it up and then trying to figure out what scientific means because the meaning of the word psychology depends on the meaning of the word scientific. Zyansheep (talk) 00:46, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Understanding science in general is not required to understand psychology. The APA omits "scientific" in its definition. While psychology draws from the natural and formal sciences, one does not need proficiency in them to achieve proficiency in psychology. As an analogy, even though that Rexburg is part of the US, one does not need to gain expertise about the US as a whole to gain expertise about Rexburg.
I showed (see above for elaboration) that science is an everyday word. Figuring out that "scientific" is the adjective for science is similarly universal among anyone that can maintain conversational English. Therefore the argument about someone needing to figure out the meaning of "scientific" doesn't hold water. Lastly, Wikipedia is not meant for children because it is not censored. Closetside (talk) 02:03, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion

[edit]

Here per third opinion request - Please briefly summarize the dispute here. Thank you, IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 17:07, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The dispute is about whether "scientific" in the first sentence should be linked. Zyansheep thinks it should, I think it shouldn't. As a main participant in the dispute, any summary I give will be biased and I doubt you will find it helpful. Closetside (talk) 18:02, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The dispute in its current form is a matter of opinion over the utility of creating a link for the word "scientific" in the first sentence or not.
My summary of my perspective: "scientific" should link to the science article as Psychology is a scientific field and a notable part of the definition, which lends credence to the idea that people who go to the page may want an easy way to get to the science page.
My (potentially biased) summary of Closetside's perspective: The APA does not use science in their definition of psychology which puts suspect onto its relevance to the definition. But even if we do use "scientific" in the lead, it should not link to the science page as science is a commonly used term and does not meet notability standards (and users could use the link to "social science" further down the page if they really needed to), risking MOS:OVERLINK. Zyansheep (talk) 18:15, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My turn then. I think two biased summaries from both of us could help our dispute resolution.
My summary of my perspective: Scientific is an everyday word that does not need to be linked per WP:OVERLINK. A holistic understanding of science is not necessary to understand psychology. It should be in the first sentence per multiple dictionary definitions. Psychology is both a natural science and social science and those two terms are linked within the first paragraph. Such hierarchical linking occurs on other pages, such as Gemara (Gemara --> Talmud --> Rabbinic Judaism --> Judaism)
My summary of Zyansheep's perspective: The definition of science is apparently really important to psychology and should be directly accessible in the lede. Closetside (talk) 18:47, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As an "unbiased" observer, I suggest we leave it unlinked. The reader would be better served with the social sciences page than the ones about science in general and the first three paragraphs are very link heavy as-is. Jasavina (talk) 20:40, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your input!
I notice that you mentioned the social sciences page as better than the sciences page and I agree. What is your opinion on the idea to have the lead be something like "Psychology is the social science of mind and behavior"? Zyansheep (talk) 21:26, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The first paragraph contains this statement: “Psychology is an academic discipline of immense scope, crossing the boundaries between the natural and social sciences.” Your proposed version contradicts that statement by implying through omission that psychology is not part of the natural sciences.
Furthermore, neither the APA nor the Oxford Dictionary places social science in the definition. I suggest we leave the first paragraph as is right now. Closetside (talk) 22:56, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Specifying social science in that first sentence would be a distraction to to main point, which is that psychology is about studying the mind and behavior. Honestly the whole first paragraph is well written, with each sentence building on the next in a digestible way. Using "social science" instead of "science" sets the reader up incorrectly for the following sentences, Jasavina (talk) 01:57, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion is retain the wording "psychology is the scientific study of mind and behaviour", and "scientific" can either link to science or remain without wikilink. I guess I would lean towards leaving it unlinked per WP:OVERLINK as a user pointed out. Doesn't matter too much either way I don't think. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 13:30, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why not to get rid of some statement which is not backed by any link? Of course it is hard to decide what destination should the "science" word to link to, because this choice is going to become an original work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.163.22.89 (talk) 11:51, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

'social' section

[edit]

Hi, Concerns I propose be addressed: 1) the entry for social psych is conspiciously short relative to the others; 2) it is also incomplete, and does not represent the scope, concerns, main tenants, etc., of the (sub-)discipline; and 3) finally, I wanted to learn about some of the statements tha conclude the passage offered by some former writer. the citation for several discrete claims that likely feserve at least one cite each is to a single book that is on another subject. perhaps, on one page, the book author makes a credible statement that supports one of the claims that the wikipedia writer put into their own words, but ... I dunno. This might be mis-leading/accurate. 

i would like somebody who knows how, and knows the subject,to please address these issues.

Cheers! Yourlocalsuperhero (talk) 01:28, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The section is rather short and the final sentence and especially the final reference are off topic. --Jcbutler (talk) 18:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Psychology&oldid=1259015471"