Talk:Humanistic psychology
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 Portal |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, which collaborates on Psychology and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project.
|
||||||||
 |
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject on Alternative Medicine. Please visit the project page for more details, or ask questions on talk. |
| B | This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale. |
 |
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details. | ||||||||||||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. | ||||||||||||
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale. | ||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||
[edit] Examples of qualitative research are needed
Humanistic psychologists certainly do not use all the methods described as qualitative. Trontonian 03:47, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)
- I added an article about qualitative psychological research and lnked to it. It's essentially a stub; I tried to be NPOV but it needs some contributions from people who are more involved in the topic than I. Trontonian 03:18, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)
[edit] Re-edit
I have done a re-edit of the article, including the establishment of three main headlines. The article still needs a lot of work; more academic reference material, more elaboration of humanistic theory and epistemology. I hope to look into the matter soon. --Hawol 14:58, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
- Good work! I may have some time to dedicate to this as well. --Janice Rowe
[edit] Optimistic view
Humanistic psychology has been criticized for promoting an optimistic but often vague view of the mind....
A valid point indeed, but a reference would be nice. Also, this problem is discussed by Humanistic Psychologists. See Rowan (2001) Chapter 2: Humanistic Psychology is and is not optimistic.
--Hawol 10:48, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
As I understand it, humanistic psychology is not distinguished from Freudian psychology by taking an attitude of optimism or pessimism, but rather by its assumption that the distinction between normal and pathological conditions is arbitrary, unnatural, and inaccurate. Whereas Freud focussed on pathopsychology and its treatment, the humanists (definitely not to be confused with atheists!) regard human mental development as a normal process amenable to guidance and improvement. In that sense, it is Freudian psychology which is optimistic in regarding everybody as "normal" except those few afflicted with illness, and humanistic psychology which is pessimistic in its implication that there are things which all people need, but not everybody gets! Unfree (talk) 19:48, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Holism, Gestalt psychology and Popperian criitique
Also, Gestalt psychologists claim to consider behaviour holistically — "the whole is greater than the sum of its parts" — although critics such as Karl Popper have presented arguments against the proposition that entities can be apprehended as wholes.
I have removed the following contribution because of source-critical reasons. I believe both the Gestalt position and the Popperian critique would benefit from the localization of these positions within a published academic work. That is, we need references for these statements.
--Hawol 14:17, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Recent contribution in need of references
Psychoanalytic critics have argued that because of humanistic psychology's emphasis on wholeness and optimism, it has downplayed the more tragic and painful dimensions of life, such as emotional conflict.
This is a valid criticism, but it would be nice to know who these critics are. Please give references. Other than that I have no objections. --Hawol 13:36, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
I am removing this passage until we can establish who these psychoanalytic critics are. --Hawol 14:43, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Humanism vs quantitative research?
It is not entirely true that humanistic psychology is against quantitative research. Viktor Frankl and Carl Rogers did some. The difference is how they used it and how they conceived it.
- I'd venture to say it's entirely false! Who can object to discoveries verified by the scientific method? Nor do they oppose the "first and second forces," though standing apart from them. In fact, they explicitly approve of them. What distinguishes the humanists is that they venture beyond what is known from lab experiments (and what is postulated and published in the case studies of psychoanalysts) into unproven areas amenable only to statistical analysis of the results of their efforts ("quantitative research"), a slow, but potentially rewarding, approach. It's like trying to evaluate a very small college by polling its graduates later on in life -- when the main criterion is whether they feel they've benefited from the experience. Unfree (talk) 23:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Rollo May: positive or not?
"Although much of Humanistic psychology tends to have a positive outlook on life and human nature, as reflected in the works of May and Maslow, the discipline is not exclusively optimistic. It also includes such thinkers as Schneider, May, and Bugental, who are not particularly optimistic (Rowan, 2001)."
This part seems self-contradictory... Where do we place May? /skagedal... 17:18, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you for pointing this out. The other theorist with a positive bent should of course be Rogers, not May. The mistake has been corrected. --Hawol 11:02, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] The handbook of humanistic psychology. Reference not cited in text
- Schneider, K.J., Bugental, J.F.T., & Pierson, J.F. (Eds.) (2002). The handbook of humanistic psychology: Leading edges in theory, research, and practice. Sage. ISBN: 0761927824
This reference is highly relevant to the article but I have removed since it is not featured in the article text. For the sake of clarity, and order, I believe that a reference should be featured in the actual body of the text before it gets listed under references. --Hawol 11:19, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
- Ok. My fault -- I mistook the references for a bibliography.
I disagree with you, Hawol, about whether references ought to be "featured" in order to be useful and appropriate for inclusion. I can understand a desire to demand relevance to the topic, and perhaps mention, citation, or even discussion, within the body, but to require each reference to be given the prominence and treatment implied by "featured" would make articles excessively verbose, and references unnecessarily few. They take up less space than discussion and provide valuable resources for people who are inclined to investigate further. Unfree (talk) 20:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Sources/References
I notice that some of the references being used are secondary sources (e.g. Rowan). While not problematic, why not use primary sources first and supplement with secondary? Just asking...
- It's a relevant question indeed. It would have been preferable to build the text around primary sources, as you suggest. The reason why I have chosen secondary sources is because these sources often give a good introduction to the field. One can get a good overview of the field from these sources, but they are no substitute for primary sources, I agree. They were mainly chosen for the sake of getting the article up and running. --Hawol 19:35, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Recent edit
I have removed Rowan as a reference for now and I have plans to subsitute the material from the Rowan book with more primary source material. Also, the criticisms of Roy Wallis and Leonard Gellerare taken from Rowans book. I hope to re-introduce these criticism as soon as I can establish the primary sources which they are taken from. --Hawol 09:02, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] W. Reich
I think Wilhem Reich should be mentioned as a predecessor, he believed in an essentially 'good' core to the human psyche, opposed to Freud, and his work has influenced a number of humanistic psychologists. Stroll 09:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Thank you Stroll. I believe your ref is correct. I will see if I can make the concept clearer here. I also have some more to add. Some criticism, and some details about development. Savoylettuce 05:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
The spelling should be Wilhelm, despite the typo on AHP's website! Unfree (talk) 22:02, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] First Force?
I could have sworn that Psychoanalysis was considered to be First Force (though i heard it called "Wave) and Behaviorism was Second Force. According to this page, its the reverse.
- Nope. See the association's whatis page. Unfree (talk) 22:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] The development of the field
This section is in serious need of editing by someone who knows the history. It's pretty poorly written and goes into the wrong details. The long list of names in the first paragraph is of no use, because none of them are tied to theoretical frameworks. No need for so much on the history of behaviorism. Simply explain how humanistic psychology is a response to behaviorist psychology. I'd do the editing myself but my knowledge of the history is all from Wikipedia to begin with. Dwinetsk 20:45, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
- One reason so many names are associated with humanistic psychology is that unlike earlier schools of psychology, it began not so much as the following of a founder and his theories, but as the result of many individuals and small groups suddenly finding each other, and that despite the diversity of their ideas, they shared similar hopes and objections. It was their coming together over a common disappointment in behaviorism and psychoanalysis which led to a theoretical framework, rather than the other way around. Unfree (talk) 22:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Petition for external links
Would somebody who knows how to do it please provide "external links" to the AHP's website (http://www.ahpweb.org) and its "whatis" page (http://www.ahpweb.org/aboutahp/whatis.html)? Unfree (talk) 19:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
