User talk:Jcbutler
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I noticed you were new, and wanted to share some links I thought useful:
- M:Foundation issues
- Wikipedia:Tutorial
- Wikipedia:Cleanup resources
- Wikipedia:Help desk
- Wikipedia:Five pillars
For more information click here. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, like this: ~~~~.
Contents |
[edit] references in Social psychology (psychology) article
Many of the references listed on this page pertain to removed sociology content, or are not cited for other reasons. I'd like to suggest that we keep this page consistent with APA style and only list references that are cited in the article. A suggested reading section might be useful, but a comprehensive bibliography for social psychology would be far beyond the scope of what we can do here. --- User:Jcbutler
- Hi J.C. Butler. It appears that you, yourself, added the multitude of references (on Revision as of 22:24, 19 October 2006 Jcbutler) that you just unilaterally removed without discussion. I suggest a discussion before seemingly drastic measures like that next time. Not sure what to do now. Those references were helpful, albeit a bibliography of sorts. Now I see you've added them back, sans E. Jones and Hastorf. Regards. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 18:07, 24 October 2006 (UTC) (talk)
Yes, I transferred all of them over from the old page a few days ago, with the thought of sorting them out later (later being today). Unless I've overlooked something, only the references specifically mentioned in the text are now listed. I got rid of a lot of them, including some that were really not related to social psychology at all, e.g. William James. Many of them were very high quality sources, just not "references." I still need to find Lewin, and of course there are all kinds of other thinks that need to be fixed and edited. I do apologize if I stepped on your toes there. Jcbutler
[edit] Personality psychology
Hi Jcbutler, I read that your professional interest is in personality psychology. Can you look over it because i believe that some of the text doesn't pertain to personality and I've got midterms right now. thank you,--Janarius 15:20, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, I'll try to look that over this weekend, but I'll probably concentrate on cleaning up the social psychology page before I take any big steps in that direction.
[edit] Re: chess
Hi, I tried to fix the vandalism on the chess template, but I don't think I was successful. I'm still a bit new at this...Jcbutler 08:48, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
- Hello! The best thing that you can do if you want to understand and counter vandalism is read Wikipedia:Vandalism. This should give you enough background information - please ask if you need any more assistance. Regards, (aeropagitica) 13:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Verbal
Not quite: "verbal" has two senses, where the first is as you describe, and the second is as a meaning for "non-written". I derived my comments from the second sense, where there is no contradiction; and a minimally charitable reading will always choose the most consistent of the two senses. Honestly, this is a matter of what you're overlooking. { Ben S. Nelson } Lucidish 16:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] * Award for high-quality editing *
 |
The Original Barnstar | |
| "This barnstar, the first on Wikipedia, is given to recognise particularly fine contributions to Wikipedia, to let people know that their hard work is seen and appreciated." These words are so appropriate that they seem to have been written specifically to describe your editing. In well over a year as an editor on Wikipedia, I have never awarded a barnstar (I would not do so frivolously). I cannot think of anyone more deserving. DoctorW 23:55, 22 November 2006 (UTC) |
[edit] Undeletion
Hi, JC. With creds like yours, I am going to defer to your knowledge and skill and undelete the article. Thanks for your patience. - Lucky 6.9 20:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you much! Jcbutler 20:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
LOL! Wow, not much there, is there? You might want to go back in the edit history to find a longer version that you can use to build around. - Lucky 6.9 20:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
JC. You undeleted a paragraph dealing with criticism of psychology that I deleted. The reason I deleted it was that the criticism was concerned with NLP, primal therapy and rebirthing. However, these are new age or pseudopsychologies and should not be considered part of the mainstream. Therefore using them as examples for criticising psychology is a straw man because they are not recognised psychological approaches. You refer to them as psychotherapies which they are not. I would agree if you were making a point about the shaky scientific ground on which some legitimate psychotherapies were based such as psycohanalysis and humanistic therapies. Voloshinov 19:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Opinion wanted
Thanks for the note - I replied to that on my talk page. I have a request - I've been working on the Utah portal and would like an outside opinion. Give it a look-over and a critique when you have time. Thanks, — Zaui (talk) 21:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] In case you're interested
Just saw this: Portal:Psychology is a featured portal candidate. Looks like they need more input. — Zaui (talk) 23:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Social psychology (psychology) review
Per your request, I've started to wade through Social psychology (psychology). So far, I've been adding (quite a few) wiki-links and made a sub-section for Persuasion under Attitudes, since it took up two paragraphs. I won't finish today, but just wanted to update you on my progress.
One thing that an outsider may wonder about - why the distinction between Social psychology (psychology) and Social psychology (sociology)? There isn't Biochemistry (chemistry) and Biochemistry (biology), there's just Biochemistry, so what makes this different? — Zaui (talk) 21:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- That's a really good question. Glimpses of the answer can be found scattered around the discussion section on the original social psychology page, but I think there is more to the story than what is written there. To some extent, we don't have the bedrock of empirical fact that gives the hard sciences their well grounded consensus. Yeah, you guys debate the occasional issue, like whether or not Pluto is a planet, but for most of social science, that is the constant state. Most of us would kill to have something as objective as the periodic table to put at the center of our discipline. As close as we can get are the big five personality traits, but even that is still debated in terms of the sufficiency of the factors, and their theoretical basis. This is why philosophers like Thomas Kuhn say that psychology is stuck in a "preparadigmatic" state. There is a lot of truth to that. And that's just psychology. We haven't even gotten to sociology yet.
- If the first reason is empirical, then it almost inevitably leads to the second reason, which is theoretical and conceptual. The psychologists and sociologists that do social psychology have different orientations and look at behavior on somewhat different levels and angles. Even where they should meet, they don't quite line up eye to eye. We speak a somewhat different language, and have different assumptions about what we do. Sociologists talk about broad concepts like "social structures" and psychologists scratch their heads and wonder how that would be measured. They're more interested in abstractions like inequality and social power. Of course, for the sociologists, we're too narrow and atomistic, looking at the trees and not seeing the forest. Without a common periodic table, it's too easy to drift apart into different academic journals and different sets of jargon. And that's pretty much what happened.
- For all my arguing with Lucidish on these pages, his heart is in the right place. We might be able to merge the two pages together again at some point, at least on wikipedia. It would take effort and more input from sociologists, and I'm not sure if there are any about right now. There aren't as many sociological people working in this area anyway. And it looks like they have done more borrowing from the other side than psychology has (e.g. social cognition), so a sociological perspective might be inherently more interdisciplinary, and thus useful for unification. Probably though, we'd just have a very volatile page that was never able to reach any kind of consensus. Jcbutler 05:55, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Cut-and-paste
Regarding your recent move of content from Extraversion to Extraversion and Introversion: Please use the move function, instead of copy-and-paste, when renaming a page. This avoids splitting the page history in several places. Russ (talk) 18:32, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
