Talk:Psychology

• 
  Caption1
• 
  Caption2

Wiki Education assignment: Introduction to Psychology Honors

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 August 2023 and 15 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): PapiMan1, CHawks17, Sxndrx2828, Addisonel (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Mirmir77, AstroWiki143, Inferior12, Ph1275, TheOneCheese, 18roo, Strawberryshortcake10.

— Assignment last updated by Sxndrx2828 (talk) 23:32, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Goals in psychology 2402:FD00:111:1325:7032:CC0:F770:8D08 (talk) 12:24, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 October 2023

I'd like to add a short paragraph in the WEIRD section about WEIRD research in AI.

The challenges of WEIRD research appears in other research communities too. For example, one of leading venue in exploring Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems’ (ACM FAccT) relies on WEIRD samples. An analysis of a sample of 128 papers published between 2018 and 2022, accounting for 30.8% of the overall proceedings published at FAccT in those years (excluding abstracts, tutorials, and papers without human-subject studies or clear country attribution for the participants) shows that 84% of the analyzed papers were exclusively based on participants from Western countries, particularly exclusively from the U.S. (63%). 2607:FEA8:539E:5D00:BD21:4A43:1025:9812 (talk) 21:46, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

This does not seem to have to do with psychology, but just research bias. Perhaps this could be added to the article ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency as a criticism section and/or added to the section Research#Bias.Richard-of-Earth (talk) 20:52, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

This seems too niche for the Psychology article. I agree with Richard-of-Earth. Zenomonoz (talk) 05:42, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

References

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. Pinchme123 (talk) 04:17, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Freud

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)

Repetitive paragraph

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)

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

Disambiguation

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)

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

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

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)

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

Wiki Education assignment: Academic Writing II 2pm

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)

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

Defintion of Psychology in the Lede

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 discipline. 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)