This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
NOTE: recent messages have been moved to the bottom of the page to maintain chronological integrity.-- Kudpung ( talk) 19:29, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
I also had to sort chronologically the posts again, that seemed to be in random order. — Paleo Neonate – 03:52, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
"The movement has received criticism in two forms. The first is from researchers in psychology, medicine, and science who often dismiss the movement as being grounded in pseudoscience, overusing Psycho-babble, and whose efficacy can be explained entirely by placebo. This criticism was expressed by Richard Feynman's response to his visit at Esalen."
As for me, use of the word 'placebo' with regard to the mental techniques is totally wrong. It could stand for the pills and other drug medicines. But not for the mental techniques, since placebo effect itself is a form of mental technique (if it works). Thus, there is _NO DIFFERENCE_ between placebo effect and mental technique.
Mental techniques don't work for everybody. It's individual question. I've been practising NLP, Transcendental Meditation, visualisation-related methods (with regards to thinking capabilities), Silva method, speed reading and other methods _for years_ with good effects. And I don't care whether some scientist accepts it as truth or not, especially that, as I said, those techniques are _individual-based_.
So, one may criticise as pseudoscience some 'archeologic revelations' as well as the 'brand new' new ideas for 'perpetual engine'; but let the sceptics stay away from the mental techniques, for they will never be able to prove them always beneficial or always harmful (or non-efficient) simply because those techniques are individual and not universal, and even if some technique works for the single person on the planet Earth, it's fine (because this person is better off). (Critto, but unlogged)
I'm a little concerned that the July 20 edit adding material refuting some criticism, and the other paragraph below in that section also refuting criticism, have a tone that becomes too conversational with the reader, as though we are giving the reader personal advice on how to balance competing claims. As has been expressed above on this page, I think there is a valid point being made here that needs to be phrased in a more objective, specific manner that ties into the subject of the movement and its critics, rather than drawing the reader aside into a sort of private conversation. -- Gary D 21:08, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I agree. -- mporch 22:56, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
The "refutations" are also inadequate, which accounts in part for the propagandistic tone. The refutation of the claim that HP is pseudoscientific is, the way I read it, pseudoscientific itself. The argument seems to be that mental techniques work for some people but not others – well, who do they work for and who not? If you can't specify that with evidence you're just speculating. The second criticism is just speculation, as well. No evidence is presented. Anyway, the article needs a lot of work not just in that section but throughout. John FitzGerald 22:14, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
I reverted the Roots section to what it was before the long passage about George Leonard was substituted for it, and then moved the encyclopedic part of the passage about Leonard to the Esalen section, where most of it belongs. I think I'll go back and add a note about Leonard to the Roots section, though. Anyway, much of the passage about Leonard was unencyclopedic, and more wasn't really necessary in this article because there is a separate article about him. The passage also smelt of copyright. I'm not saying that it's used without permission, but some reassurance is necessary.
Esalen also is clearly not part of the roots of the movement, which go back to the 40s. John FitzGerald 14:08, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
And it turned out there was an article about this George Leonard, namely George Burr Leonard, so I redirected my attempt to it and added a couple of things. John FitzGerald 14:41, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
It's amazing for me to have finally stumbled across this page and its tracing of this movement, having had a personal breakthrough do to self-actualization (a term I learned in high school Health) and the realization that my life's ultimate goals should be in awakening other people's untapped potential and encourage growth and education. I've never read a self-help book, nor had a person recommend any of this to me. My experience with all of this is largely from conclusions I drew myself, so it's interesting to find base for my personal beliefs in larger philosophies. Does anyone else feel like weighing in on personal comments about this movement? Cybertooth85 07:39, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
If I'm interpretting the human potential movement properly, then words such as "happiness, creativity, and fulfillment" should not be used in such an unqualified manner. If I can tap my fullest potential, why would I be happy or fulfilled? Maybe I would become more unfulfilled and unhappy. These adjectives should be avoided in a neutral article.
I don't see the point of having this section at all, or at least making much smaller relative to the other segments. Fridakahlofan ( talk) 01:01, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Doesn't the human potential movement really go back to Joshua Loth Liebman and his bestseller Peace of Mind (1946)? John FitzGerald 01:19, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi all. For anyone who's interested, there is a major critique of the HPM by Plumb,L.D. 1993 ISBN 0-8153-0777-2. It looks at Maslow, Rogers, and Perls. I guess this may also apply well to the Humanistic Psychology article. There is an interesting element that says Edwin Schur identified some key elements: Openness to imediate experience;denigration of the intellect; and being "real" as opposed to playing a social role. ONe criticsim is that self-realization takes one away from social concerns too much. One argument says that Americans have never been strong on ocial consciousness. Thus, Schur states that the movement's popularity is rooted in complacency. Peter Martin referred to the HPM as the "new narcissism" and argued that these are the expressions of the "growing solipsism of and desperation of a beleaguered class". Martin doesn't say it is complacency, rather that it is neither simple greed nor moral blindness, but it is instead the unrealized shame of having failed the world and not knowing what to do about it. Christopher Lasch's analysis differs from both the prior. He argued that the HPM is the result of the warlike condidtions that pervade American society, from the dangers and uncertainty that surround us in abundance, and from the loss of confidence in the future. He says that the defensiveness concerning the "shallowness of society" gives rise to the "living here and now" so as not to seek value in the unreliable world outside of yourself. The tragedy being; these defensive responses to the loss of community contribute to the further denigration of society. The last line of the book is interesting "In the final analysis, the HPM constituted and anathema to the attempt to gain self-understanding ad to create an ethical society of persons. The HPM has apparently disintegrated, although aspects of the consciousness revolution will continue for some time" I can provide page numbers if folk are interested. Savoylettuce 05:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
See
Malangthon 01:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Some of the best and most balanced criticism of the HPM, looking at both its significant contributions as well as the not-so-hidden narcissistic underbelly that it often (and often unwittingly) supports is from Ken Wilber. See "Eye to Eye," "Sex, Ecology, Spirituality," and "The Eye of Spirit" (among others). He is quite critical of the HPM, despite being close with leaders in that field. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.46.182.104 ( talk) 00:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC).
The following links do not comply with WP:EL standards:
Lsi john 22:34, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Notes and References Note no.1 is inactive Note no.2 is Harper's Magazine; this is not a scholarly journal Reference (the only one) a book which is a critique of the HPM External link; Coulson; also an article which is a critique of HPM External link; Silva Method; looks like an advert.
There are no academic/scholarly/genuine references for HPM (as opposed to its critics) Fridakahlofan ( talk) 16:02, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm doing POV tag cleanup. Whenever an POV tag is placed, it is necessary to also post a message in the discussion section stating clearly why it is thought the article does not comply with POV guidelines, and suggestions for how to improve it. This permits discussion and consensus among editors. This is a drive-by tag, which is discouraged in WP, and it shall be removed. Future tags should have discussion posted as to why the tag was placed, and how the topic might be improved. Better yet, edit the topic yourself with the improvements. This statement is not a judgement of content, it is only a cleanup of frivolously and/or arbitrarily placed tags. No discussion, no tag. Jjdon ( talk) 19:10, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
When the article invokes Feynman, it seems to be claiming that he somehow specifically debunked the concept that humans possess potential. Reading the content of his speech, however, he only discusses his visit to Esalen to recall an incident where he witnesses a couple of naked hippies practicing reflexology, and that it perplexed him. What is the aim of an author who falsely invokes an undisputedly credible person to discredit something? Despite the hippies who may have tried to push some analog of the idea that we can be something more, you can't deny that humans have demonstrated great potential throughout history, or the parallel theme that whenever someone does this, inexplicably there are always these people waiting in the wings with baseball bats anxious to beat them down. Whatever your agenda, please leave Mr. Feynman out of this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.66.187.132 ( talk) 02:20, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
I made a general enquiry about editing this page and was advised to 'be bold'. After making some minor edits, I find that they have all been reversed and I am being accused of vandalism. My first point is that this article is not within the scope of religion. The human potential movement is based in Humanistic Psychology. Secondly, the entire article is very subjective and reads as a critique of the human potential movement. Also, most of the 'theorists' being discussed were not the founders of this movement, nor were they at the forefront. The human potential movement is most certainly not part of the new age movement. Initially some of the leaders of the new age movement tried to associate themselves within the human potential movement in the hope of gaining some credibility.
Also, I don't understand why this article has been rated as 'low importance'? The request for verification of sources is dated June 2010. It is obvious to me, as a professional in the field of Psychology that this article was written by someone who does not have a solid theoretical foundation in this topic. It also seems to me that to spend huge amounts of time trying to edit an article which is so poorly researched is pointless. Most of the important concepts used within the HPM are not mentioned, or skimmed over inadequately. Fridakahlofan ( talk) 01:01, 1 November 2010 (UTC) There also appears to be some confusion between 'self-help methods' and human potential movement. The article needs to be re-written, not as a critique but as a factual, unbiased, fully referenced report of the human potential movement.How long has this discussion been going? 2004??? Imagine someone who knows nothing or very little about the human potential movement and regards wikipedia as a reference site. Would they be well informed after reading the article Fridakahlofan ( talk) 01:01, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
<ref>{{Cite doi|
and }}</ref>
, or its
PMID between <ref>{{Cite pmid|
and }}</ref>
, and the citation will be created a few minutes after you save your edit. Search the source article to find its doi. To get an article's PMID, search for its title
here, and the PMID will appear below the article's abstract.I removed a section in the article that had been unsourced since 2008. It was attempting to make a comparison between the human potential movement and the New Age Movement. I looked for sources for this, but could not find anything that was not a Christian Website or author warning about the dangers of many things "non'christian- hardly reliable sources. There was a sourced statement about narcissism that I put in the Authors and Essayists section. Elmmapleoakpine ( talk) 20:04, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Is it really right or fair to say that Viktor Frankl and Abraham Maslow were "proponents" or otherwise associated with the HPM? Certainly their findings are cited by its founders and adherents, so they have been "associated" with it in a retrospective sense, but as used here it seems to imply that they were actively involved in it, which I don't feel to be correct. Galileo and Newton laid a foundation for physics that later led to the study of subatomic particles, but neither was in any direct way "associated" with the field. 75.216.126.16 ( talk) 15:35, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Most of the information in the article refers to the 1960s and 70s. Although the article uses the present tense for HPM, a reader might conclude that this movement is historical. In that case, the reader would expect information about the end or dissolution of the movement. The only thing in the article that even implies the existence of the movement past the 1970s is the existence of a "Notable Proponent" who was born in 1960 and the fact that the footnote source for the Virginia Satir quote "We are at a crossroads" is to a 2011 web article. Then again, that article also quotes Abraham Lincoln. The article indicates the Virginia Satir quote is from 1984.
So, if this is an existing movement, there needs to be something about it. Otherwise it looks like HPM was only a 1960s-70s phenomenon. There should also be some information on the size of the HPM at its maximum, an indication of when that was, and some indication of the size/importance of the HPM at present.
Finally, there is not much about the movement itself other than what is in the introduction, its "roots," a couple of paragraphs about some authors & essayists [the title doesn't give an indication of their relationship to the HPM], and a list of Notable Proponents. Since there isn't much on what HPM is about, there is, of course, nothing about criticism of HPM. How was it received at the time? What is its relevance today? Does the HPM exist outside of Esalen? Ileanadu ( talk) 05:19, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
I added a couple of sentences to the article yesterday [1], and they were promptly reverted with the edit summary: "first sentence of source and edit are identical. Second sentence is an assemblage: partly copyvio, partly misrepresenting what the source says."
It's not clear to me that either of these reasons are justified: as I understand it, one or two sentences quoted are fair use not copyvio. And the second sentence is also an exact quote, so I'm not sure why that editor called it an "assemblage". I've re-added it, making clear that it's a quote, and attributing in the text as well as the ref. Any thoughts? DaveApter ( talk) 10:41, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
The quote is taken from page 399 of my copy of the book (Lion Publishing 2004), and is exact. Perhaps an apology and a reinstatement of my edit is in order? DaveApter ( talk) 16:03, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
I removed two refs in the 'Social influences' section. Both of these were opinion pieces published on partisan websites which clearly do not meet Wikipedia's criteria as Reliable Sources. Unless reliable sources can be found to substantiate the dubious assertions in that section, perhaps it should be excised? DaveApter ( talk) 12:19, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
I see that this removal was reverted. Not only do the sources not meet WP:RS, but they relate to opinions rather than facts, and violate the neutral point of view policy. DaveApter ( talk) 10:08, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Could Roberto Assagioli be added to the list of proponents? The article on Assagioli does say that he was a big name in humanistic and transpersonal psychology. What is more, he was the founder of psychosynthesis. Vorbee ( talk) 21:02, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
In its current form, I find this section doesn't adequately explain the connections between the hippie counter-culture and Western interest in Indian religions / the emergence of New Religious Movements.
"HPM was regarded by some as being related to psychedelic culture such as hippies and Summer of Love. According to author Andrew Grant Jackson, George Harrison's adoption of Hindu philosophy and Indian instrumentation in his songs with the Beatles in the mid 1960s, together with the band's highly publicised study of Transcendental Meditation, 'truly kick-started' the Human Potential Movement. It had not been defined what was 'human potentialities'. They themselves came to be called not only 'New Age' but also 'new religion'."'
I don't find any of this follows logically and is proven. How exactly did these events "kick-start" the Human Potential Movement? Did Transcendental Meditation offer a definition of human potentialities? I think that is implied with the current text, but it isn't clear -- and I also think stating how TM defined the term (if it did) is crucial. I also find the last sentence to be a bit irrelevant... it seems to be more about hippies or adherents of TM than it does HPM.
In short, the connections aren't sufficiently made, and the block quotation that follows doesn't resolve this problem either. Actually, Elizabeth Puttick's synopsis of HPM contradicts the statements in this section, arguing HPM influenced New Religious Movements rooted in Eastern religion, rather than the other way around. Mark Stein's article in the LA Times also doesn't support the arguments in this section; it simply states San Francisco is the capital of the Human Potential Movement as a continuation of the city's openness to counter-cultural movements, but doesn't state there is a direct, influential connection between HPM and the hippie scene of the 1960's. I do not have access to the two books cited.
Correcting these issues is extremely important, as there is a long legacy of individualism and self-improvement in American culture dating back at least to the Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin. BornOn8thOfJuly ( talk) 02:21, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
The Section "In Europe" cites "Implementing European Union Education and Training Policy" for the claim that there is a rising interesting in HPM in Europe. However, I could not find any direct relation to HPM in the source; the word "human potential" appears once in the book, in the title of a coordination program and neither do research hypothesis refer to it or related concepts. So, while it is plausible that HPM influenced EU programs, I could not establish it via the source, so the section might rather be original research -- Simulo ( talk) 09:50, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
NOTE: recent messages have been moved to the bottom of the page to maintain chronological integrity.-- Kudpung ( talk) 19:29, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
I also had to sort chronologically the posts again, that seemed to be in random order. — Paleo Neonate – 03:52, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
"The movement has received criticism in two forms. The first is from researchers in psychology, medicine, and science who often dismiss the movement as being grounded in pseudoscience, overusing Psycho-babble, and whose efficacy can be explained entirely by placebo. This criticism was expressed by Richard Feynman's response to his visit at Esalen."
As for me, use of the word 'placebo' with regard to the mental techniques is totally wrong. It could stand for the pills and other drug medicines. But not for the mental techniques, since placebo effect itself is a form of mental technique (if it works). Thus, there is _NO DIFFERENCE_ between placebo effect and mental technique.
Mental techniques don't work for everybody. It's individual question. I've been practising NLP, Transcendental Meditation, visualisation-related methods (with regards to thinking capabilities), Silva method, speed reading and other methods _for years_ with good effects. And I don't care whether some scientist accepts it as truth or not, especially that, as I said, those techniques are _individual-based_.
So, one may criticise as pseudoscience some 'archeologic revelations' as well as the 'brand new' new ideas for 'perpetual engine'; but let the sceptics stay away from the mental techniques, for they will never be able to prove them always beneficial or always harmful (or non-efficient) simply because those techniques are individual and not universal, and even if some technique works for the single person on the planet Earth, it's fine (because this person is better off). (Critto, but unlogged)
I'm a little concerned that the July 20 edit adding material refuting some criticism, and the other paragraph below in that section also refuting criticism, have a tone that becomes too conversational with the reader, as though we are giving the reader personal advice on how to balance competing claims. As has been expressed above on this page, I think there is a valid point being made here that needs to be phrased in a more objective, specific manner that ties into the subject of the movement and its critics, rather than drawing the reader aside into a sort of private conversation. -- Gary D 21:08, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I agree. -- mporch 22:56, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
The "refutations" are also inadequate, which accounts in part for the propagandistic tone. The refutation of the claim that HP is pseudoscientific is, the way I read it, pseudoscientific itself. The argument seems to be that mental techniques work for some people but not others – well, who do they work for and who not? If you can't specify that with evidence you're just speculating. The second criticism is just speculation, as well. No evidence is presented. Anyway, the article needs a lot of work not just in that section but throughout. John FitzGerald 22:14, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
I reverted the Roots section to what it was before the long passage about George Leonard was substituted for it, and then moved the encyclopedic part of the passage about Leonard to the Esalen section, where most of it belongs. I think I'll go back and add a note about Leonard to the Roots section, though. Anyway, much of the passage about Leonard was unencyclopedic, and more wasn't really necessary in this article because there is a separate article about him. The passage also smelt of copyright. I'm not saying that it's used without permission, but some reassurance is necessary.
Esalen also is clearly not part of the roots of the movement, which go back to the 40s. John FitzGerald 14:08, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
And it turned out there was an article about this George Leonard, namely George Burr Leonard, so I redirected my attempt to it and added a couple of things. John FitzGerald 14:41, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
It's amazing for me to have finally stumbled across this page and its tracing of this movement, having had a personal breakthrough do to self-actualization (a term I learned in high school Health) and the realization that my life's ultimate goals should be in awakening other people's untapped potential and encourage growth and education. I've never read a self-help book, nor had a person recommend any of this to me. My experience with all of this is largely from conclusions I drew myself, so it's interesting to find base for my personal beliefs in larger philosophies. Does anyone else feel like weighing in on personal comments about this movement? Cybertooth85 07:39, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
If I'm interpretting the human potential movement properly, then words such as "happiness, creativity, and fulfillment" should not be used in such an unqualified manner. If I can tap my fullest potential, why would I be happy or fulfilled? Maybe I would become more unfulfilled and unhappy. These adjectives should be avoided in a neutral article.
I don't see the point of having this section at all, or at least making much smaller relative to the other segments. Fridakahlofan ( talk) 01:01, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Doesn't the human potential movement really go back to Joshua Loth Liebman and his bestseller Peace of Mind (1946)? John FitzGerald 01:19, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi all. For anyone who's interested, there is a major critique of the HPM by Plumb,L.D. 1993 ISBN 0-8153-0777-2. It looks at Maslow, Rogers, and Perls. I guess this may also apply well to the Humanistic Psychology article. There is an interesting element that says Edwin Schur identified some key elements: Openness to imediate experience;denigration of the intellect; and being "real" as opposed to playing a social role. ONe criticsim is that self-realization takes one away from social concerns too much. One argument says that Americans have never been strong on ocial consciousness. Thus, Schur states that the movement's popularity is rooted in complacency. Peter Martin referred to the HPM as the "new narcissism" and argued that these are the expressions of the "growing solipsism of and desperation of a beleaguered class". Martin doesn't say it is complacency, rather that it is neither simple greed nor moral blindness, but it is instead the unrealized shame of having failed the world and not knowing what to do about it. Christopher Lasch's analysis differs from both the prior. He argued that the HPM is the result of the warlike condidtions that pervade American society, from the dangers and uncertainty that surround us in abundance, and from the loss of confidence in the future. He says that the defensiveness concerning the "shallowness of society" gives rise to the "living here and now" so as not to seek value in the unreliable world outside of yourself. The tragedy being; these defensive responses to the loss of community contribute to the further denigration of society. The last line of the book is interesting "In the final analysis, the HPM constituted and anathema to the attempt to gain self-understanding ad to create an ethical society of persons. The HPM has apparently disintegrated, although aspects of the consciousness revolution will continue for some time" I can provide page numbers if folk are interested. Savoylettuce 05:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
See
Malangthon 01:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Some of the best and most balanced criticism of the HPM, looking at both its significant contributions as well as the not-so-hidden narcissistic underbelly that it often (and often unwittingly) supports is from Ken Wilber. See "Eye to Eye," "Sex, Ecology, Spirituality," and "The Eye of Spirit" (among others). He is quite critical of the HPM, despite being close with leaders in that field. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.46.182.104 ( talk) 00:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC).
The following links do not comply with WP:EL standards:
Lsi john 22:34, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Notes and References Note no.1 is inactive Note no.2 is Harper's Magazine; this is not a scholarly journal Reference (the only one) a book which is a critique of the HPM External link; Coulson; also an article which is a critique of HPM External link; Silva Method; looks like an advert.
There are no academic/scholarly/genuine references for HPM (as opposed to its critics) Fridakahlofan ( talk) 16:02, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm doing POV tag cleanup. Whenever an POV tag is placed, it is necessary to also post a message in the discussion section stating clearly why it is thought the article does not comply with POV guidelines, and suggestions for how to improve it. This permits discussion and consensus among editors. This is a drive-by tag, which is discouraged in WP, and it shall be removed. Future tags should have discussion posted as to why the tag was placed, and how the topic might be improved. Better yet, edit the topic yourself with the improvements. This statement is not a judgement of content, it is only a cleanup of frivolously and/or arbitrarily placed tags. No discussion, no tag. Jjdon ( talk) 19:10, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
When the article invokes Feynman, it seems to be claiming that he somehow specifically debunked the concept that humans possess potential. Reading the content of his speech, however, he only discusses his visit to Esalen to recall an incident where he witnesses a couple of naked hippies practicing reflexology, and that it perplexed him. What is the aim of an author who falsely invokes an undisputedly credible person to discredit something? Despite the hippies who may have tried to push some analog of the idea that we can be something more, you can't deny that humans have demonstrated great potential throughout history, or the parallel theme that whenever someone does this, inexplicably there are always these people waiting in the wings with baseball bats anxious to beat them down. Whatever your agenda, please leave Mr. Feynman out of this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.66.187.132 ( talk) 02:20, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
I made a general enquiry about editing this page and was advised to 'be bold'. After making some minor edits, I find that they have all been reversed and I am being accused of vandalism. My first point is that this article is not within the scope of religion. The human potential movement is based in Humanistic Psychology. Secondly, the entire article is very subjective and reads as a critique of the human potential movement. Also, most of the 'theorists' being discussed were not the founders of this movement, nor were they at the forefront. The human potential movement is most certainly not part of the new age movement. Initially some of the leaders of the new age movement tried to associate themselves within the human potential movement in the hope of gaining some credibility.
Also, I don't understand why this article has been rated as 'low importance'? The request for verification of sources is dated June 2010. It is obvious to me, as a professional in the field of Psychology that this article was written by someone who does not have a solid theoretical foundation in this topic. It also seems to me that to spend huge amounts of time trying to edit an article which is so poorly researched is pointless. Most of the important concepts used within the HPM are not mentioned, or skimmed over inadequately. Fridakahlofan ( talk) 01:01, 1 November 2010 (UTC) There also appears to be some confusion between 'self-help methods' and human potential movement. The article needs to be re-written, not as a critique but as a factual, unbiased, fully referenced report of the human potential movement.How long has this discussion been going? 2004??? Imagine someone who knows nothing or very little about the human potential movement and regards wikipedia as a reference site. Would they be well informed after reading the article Fridakahlofan ( talk) 01:01, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
<ref>{{Cite doi|
and }}</ref>
, or its
PMID between <ref>{{Cite pmid|
and }}</ref>
, and the citation will be created a few minutes after you save your edit. Search the source article to find its doi. To get an article's PMID, search for its title
here, and the PMID will appear below the article's abstract.I removed a section in the article that had been unsourced since 2008. It was attempting to make a comparison between the human potential movement and the New Age Movement. I looked for sources for this, but could not find anything that was not a Christian Website or author warning about the dangers of many things "non'christian- hardly reliable sources. There was a sourced statement about narcissism that I put in the Authors and Essayists section. Elmmapleoakpine ( talk) 20:04, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Is it really right or fair to say that Viktor Frankl and Abraham Maslow were "proponents" or otherwise associated with the HPM? Certainly their findings are cited by its founders and adherents, so they have been "associated" with it in a retrospective sense, but as used here it seems to imply that they were actively involved in it, which I don't feel to be correct. Galileo and Newton laid a foundation for physics that later led to the study of subatomic particles, but neither was in any direct way "associated" with the field. 75.216.126.16 ( talk) 15:35, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Most of the information in the article refers to the 1960s and 70s. Although the article uses the present tense for HPM, a reader might conclude that this movement is historical. In that case, the reader would expect information about the end or dissolution of the movement. The only thing in the article that even implies the existence of the movement past the 1970s is the existence of a "Notable Proponent" who was born in 1960 and the fact that the footnote source for the Virginia Satir quote "We are at a crossroads" is to a 2011 web article. Then again, that article also quotes Abraham Lincoln. The article indicates the Virginia Satir quote is from 1984.
So, if this is an existing movement, there needs to be something about it. Otherwise it looks like HPM was only a 1960s-70s phenomenon. There should also be some information on the size of the HPM at its maximum, an indication of when that was, and some indication of the size/importance of the HPM at present.
Finally, there is not much about the movement itself other than what is in the introduction, its "roots," a couple of paragraphs about some authors & essayists [the title doesn't give an indication of their relationship to the HPM], and a list of Notable Proponents. Since there isn't much on what HPM is about, there is, of course, nothing about criticism of HPM. How was it received at the time? What is its relevance today? Does the HPM exist outside of Esalen? Ileanadu ( talk) 05:19, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
I added a couple of sentences to the article yesterday [1], and they were promptly reverted with the edit summary: "first sentence of source and edit are identical. Second sentence is an assemblage: partly copyvio, partly misrepresenting what the source says."
It's not clear to me that either of these reasons are justified: as I understand it, one or two sentences quoted are fair use not copyvio. And the second sentence is also an exact quote, so I'm not sure why that editor called it an "assemblage". I've re-added it, making clear that it's a quote, and attributing in the text as well as the ref. Any thoughts? DaveApter ( talk) 10:41, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
The quote is taken from page 399 of my copy of the book (Lion Publishing 2004), and is exact. Perhaps an apology and a reinstatement of my edit is in order? DaveApter ( talk) 16:03, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
I removed two refs in the 'Social influences' section. Both of these were opinion pieces published on partisan websites which clearly do not meet Wikipedia's criteria as Reliable Sources. Unless reliable sources can be found to substantiate the dubious assertions in that section, perhaps it should be excised? DaveApter ( talk) 12:19, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
I see that this removal was reverted. Not only do the sources not meet WP:RS, but they relate to opinions rather than facts, and violate the neutral point of view policy. DaveApter ( talk) 10:08, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Could Roberto Assagioli be added to the list of proponents? The article on Assagioli does say that he was a big name in humanistic and transpersonal psychology. What is more, he was the founder of psychosynthesis. Vorbee ( talk) 21:02, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
In its current form, I find this section doesn't adequately explain the connections between the hippie counter-culture and Western interest in Indian religions / the emergence of New Religious Movements.
"HPM was regarded by some as being related to psychedelic culture such as hippies and Summer of Love. According to author Andrew Grant Jackson, George Harrison's adoption of Hindu philosophy and Indian instrumentation in his songs with the Beatles in the mid 1960s, together with the band's highly publicised study of Transcendental Meditation, 'truly kick-started' the Human Potential Movement. It had not been defined what was 'human potentialities'. They themselves came to be called not only 'New Age' but also 'new religion'."'
I don't find any of this follows logically and is proven. How exactly did these events "kick-start" the Human Potential Movement? Did Transcendental Meditation offer a definition of human potentialities? I think that is implied with the current text, but it isn't clear -- and I also think stating how TM defined the term (if it did) is crucial. I also find the last sentence to be a bit irrelevant... it seems to be more about hippies or adherents of TM than it does HPM.
In short, the connections aren't sufficiently made, and the block quotation that follows doesn't resolve this problem either. Actually, Elizabeth Puttick's synopsis of HPM contradicts the statements in this section, arguing HPM influenced New Religious Movements rooted in Eastern religion, rather than the other way around. Mark Stein's article in the LA Times also doesn't support the arguments in this section; it simply states San Francisco is the capital of the Human Potential Movement as a continuation of the city's openness to counter-cultural movements, but doesn't state there is a direct, influential connection between HPM and the hippie scene of the 1960's. I do not have access to the two books cited.
Correcting these issues is extremely important, as there is a long legacy of individualism and self-improvement in American culture dating back at least to the Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin. BornOn8thOfJuly ( talk) 02:21, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
The Section "In Europe" cites "Implementing European Union Education and Training Policy" for the claim that there is a rising interesting in HPM in Europe. However, I could not find any direct relation to HPM in the source; the word "human potential" appears once in the book, in the title of a coordination program and neither do research hypothesis refer to it or related concepts. So, while it is plausible that HPM influenced EU programs, I could not establish it via the source, so the section might rather be original research -- Simulo ( talk) 09:50, 21 February 2024 (UTC)