This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Manipulation (psychology) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
Archives ( Index) |
This page is archived by
ClueBot III.
|
Renamed article from "Psychological manipulation" to "Manipulation (psychology)" to be constant with the clinical and common used term for this subject and to follow the Wikipedia naming convention for delineating terms with multiple definitions. " Manipulation" was not available as it is a disambiguation page.
Psychological manipulation is not a thing. It's an obscure term that has somehow made its way into the Wikipedia lexicon and if you Google the term, mostly (only) Wikipedia articles come up. It's a Wiki-word. It's often substituted at Wikipedia for the simple word "manipulation" that appeared in the original article citations.
This term "Psychological manipulation"" is not used in psychology, not generally used in the media, it does not appear in the DSM or or mental health catalogs, it is not in the English or APA dictionaries.
It is occasionally used for it's sensational effect in books like |Mindf_cking, A Critique of Mental Manipulation but these are not considered "reliable resources".
Wiki-psyc ( talk) 16:46, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
I don't know how to edit a wiki without breaking things but this one is littered with an apparent find and replace error "elyse". Not sure how to fix that. Help? 217.122.169.235 ( talk) 11:12, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
Nevermind, I guess someone alrdy got this fixed. Heroes!
It’s just vandalism Mvbaron ( talk) 11:15, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 11 January 2022 and 6 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Hronnie223 ( article contribs).
See Wiki-psyc's talk page for an ongoing discussion of this article's content. Darcyisverycute ( talk) 08:34, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
At the time of publication, emotional intelligence assessments did not specifically examine manipulative behavior or Machiavellianism and were instead predominantly focussed on Big Five personality trait assessment.In the context of this article, what the study didn't include is irrelevant.
The MEOS has also been used for assessing emotional intelligence, and has been compared to the HEXACO model of personality structure, for which the capacity for inauthenticity category in the MEOS was found to correspond to low honesty-humility scores on the HEXACO.In the context of this article, a comparison to HEXACO is without context.
Manipulation is common. No such thing as “normal”, really …. given the diversity of human beings. BUT there IS such a thing as “functional” vs. "dysfunctional"and I think this is more accurate as a description. My opinion is, nothing is "normal" in psychology; there are only epidemiology statistics.
People in toxic relationships need to hear counterpoints somewhere. They are conditioned to think the interactions are normal. Someone needs to help them break out of that assumption.
This is an article from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy that covers the topic of manipulationThe citation you provide is compelling. However, it states the view that manipulation is common, not necessarily normal. More importantly, it is a philosophy and ethics source, not a psychology source, which I don't consider reliable for a psychology article since it is from a different field and does not consider epidemiology or etiology. The source is cautious about its claims, not asserting this is a mainstream view: it quotes another author saying
it is possible to interpret manipulation as a normal. I am not famaliar with the philosophy around manipulation; maybe a case is to be made for a separate article on that topic, but I don't think it belongs in a psychology article.
When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources.This does not explicitly mention self-help books, although I don't believe self-help books are subjected to the same level of peer-review scrutiny as journal publications which I have used.
Manipulation manifests itself in all the fields of activity of the individual, basically in all human relationships, even in love, religion, philosophy, science, art, etc. This article focuses on all these aspects, proving that manipulations in itself represents an inherent social phenomenon for the contemporary human being.In addition to the Standford reference above, you might also want to read this article in the International Journal of Communication Research; [4] or this APA article [5] or this article from Dartmouth's Joel Rudinow PhD in Ethics [6]. Wiki-psyc ( talk) 19:07, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
Manipulation is fundamental to triangulation which is a tenet in Family Theory.You are welcome to add a theory section in WP:SS in the manipulation article to describe content in Triangulation (psychology) and possibly also expand the aforementioned linked article -- you claim manipulation is fundamental to triangulation, and the page does not mention manipulation, so I encourage you to add content and citations there.
It's not surprising that there is not a plethora of journal articles on manipulation - its an elementary topic more likely to appear in a textbook.I am using these citations not just to show that these publications exist -- I am using it as evidence to support my view of current scientific consensus on manipulation in psychology, which I intend to use as the basis for rewriting the manipulation article: "manipulation has both clinical and subclinical manifestations, and for both of these there exist epidemiology, etiology and accurate measurement/assessment resources." This, along with the citations I have provided, are in contradiction with the claim that (psychological) scientific consensus considers manipulation to be "normal". Hence my efforts at discussion to establish consensus before editing the article again. I can see from the references you've provided there is probably enough content to write a wikipedia article on manipulation ethics as a social phenomena. However, this does not belong in the psychology page for manipulation.
I personally think being interdisciplinary nature of wikipedia articles is valuable... so don't really like arguments along the lines of "this is a psychology not philosophy". But think the article should be structured so that it clear where information comes from. I note the "psychology" in the title, but think this is mostly there to distinguish from other uses of the word (e.g. "manipulation of joints", "manipulation of an object"). I'd throw in that there is probably a whole bunch of content from the study of discourse and the humanities. Talpedia ( talk) 14:55, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
{{Disputed}}
tag on the page, and request
WP:DR to see if that can hopefully help resolve the disagreement between wiki-psyc and myself (
here). Also, @
Wiki-psyc: I will note that the summary I left on
WP:30 which was later moved to the top of the talk page subheading by you, was meant to be neutral and I ask that you don't copy my signed messages to move to different pages in future (see
WP:TPO for talk page guidelines)
Darcyisverycute (
talk) 05:18, 10 July 2022 (UTC)Yeah, I'm all for making a separate anthropology/philosophy articleHmm, I don't really see why this can't be dealt with through sections given how short the article is. I guess above a certain size trying to interleave covering different sources could make reading the article short. But given how short the article it feels a bit like we are arbitrarily limiting the scope of the article... and I can't really see a valid reason why? Talpedia ( talk) 10:01, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
"pathology of manipulation in psychology"The literature doesn't support this and therein lies the dispute. The length and organization of the article seems like a back foot to describes "manipulation" as a mental illness/pathology. I would suggest taht instead, you would need to find a substantial piece of work that supports your [WP:ORIGINAL] and if you can, you could then suggest modifications to the mental health section of the article. Wiki-psyc ( talk) 15:31, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 May 2022 and 6 August 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Hhavenh ( article contribs). Peer reviewers: Joyb3.
— Assignment last updated by Savannaj13 ( talk) 02:58, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2022 and 7 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mpatel48 ( article contribs). Peer reviewers: Kayoff, Psychcap, Srivera6, Gsch23, Tolber2K.
— Assignment last updated by Rahneli ( talk) 16:30, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
This article needs to be re-written by someone with a thorough understanding of human psychology’s history and the ability to write in a clear and relatively objective way. As it stands, the article seems to be pushing unsubstantiated opinions. I could not say with certainty that the author is fluent in english. 2601:602:8000:2536:2096:CC07:BC55:229 ( talk) 22:33, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
Je suis hacker par tout le monde 142.127.27.54 ( talk) 05:46, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Manipulation (psychology) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
Archives ( Index) |
This page is archived by
ClueBot III.
|
Renamed article from "Psychological manipulation" to "Manipulation (psychology)" to be constant with the clinical and common used term for this subject and to follow the Wikipedia naming convention for delineating terms with multiple definitions. " Manipulation" was not available as it is a disambiguation page.
Psychological manipulation is not a thing. It's an obscure term that has somehow made its way into the Wikipedia lexicon and if you Google the term, mostly (only) Wikipedia articles come up. It's a Wiki-word. It's often substituted at Wikipedia for the simple word "manipulation" that appeared in the original article citations.
This term "Psychological manipulation"" is not used in psychology, not generally used in the media, it does not appear in the DSM or or mental health catalogs, it is not in the English or APA dictionaries.
It is occasionally used for it's sensational effect in books like |Mindf_cking, A Critique of Mental Manipulation but these are not considered "reliable resources".
Wiki-psyc ( talk) 16:46, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
I don't know how to edit a wiki without breaking things but this one is littered with an apparent find and replace error "elyse". Not sure how to fix that. Help? 217.122.169.235 ( talk) 11:12, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
Nevermind, I guess someone alrdy got this fixed. Heroes!
It’s just vandalism Mvbaron ( talk) 11:15, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 11 January 2022 and 6 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Hronnie223 ( article contribs).
See Wiki-psyc's talk page for an ongoing discussion of this article's content. Darcyisverycute ( talk) 08:34, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
At the time of publication, emotional intelligence assessments did not specifically examine manipulative behavior or Machiavellianism and were instead predominantly focussed on Big Five personality trait assessment.In the context of this article, what the study didn't include is irrelevant.
The MEOS has also been used for assessing emotional intelligence, and has been compared to the HEXACO model of personality structure, for which the capacity for inauthenticity category in the MEOS was found to correspond to low honesty-humility scores on the HEXACO.In the context of this article, a comparison to HEXACO is without context.
Manipulation is common. No such thing as “normal”, really …. given the diversity of human beings. BUT there IS such a thing as “functional” vs. "dysfunctional"and I think this is more accurate as a description. My opinion is, nothing is "normal" in psychology; there are only epidemiology statistics.
People in toxic relationships need to hear counterpoints somewhere. They are conditioned to think the interactions are normal. Someone needs to help them break out of that assumption.
This is an article from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy that covers the topic of manipulationThe citation you provide is compelling. However, it states the view that manipulation is common, not necessarily normal. More importantly, it is a philosophy and ethics source, not a psychology source, which I don't consider reliable for a psychology article since it is from a different field and does not consider epidemiology or etiology. The source is cautious about its claims, not asserting this is a mainstream view: it quotes another author saying
it is possible to interpret manipulation as a normal. I am not famaliar with the philosophy around manipulation; maybe a case is to be made for a separate article on that topic, but I don't think it belongs in a psychology article.
When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources.This does not explicitly mention self-help books, although I don't believe self-help books are subjected to the same level of peer-review scrutiny as journal publications which I have used.
Manipulation manifests itself in all the fields of activity of the individual, basically in all human relationships, even in love, religion, philosophy, science, art, etc. This article focuses on all these aspects, proving that manipulations in itself represents an inherent social phenomenon for the contemporary human being.In addition to the Standford reference above, you might also want to read this article in the International Journal of Communication Research; [4] or this APA article [5] or this article from Dartmouth's Joel Rudinow PhD in Ethics [6]. Wiki-psyc ( talk) 19:07, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
Manipulation is fundamental to triangulation which is a tenet in Family Theory.You are welcome to add a theory section in WP:SS in the manipulation article to describe content in Triangulation (psychology) and possibly also expand the aforementioned linked article -- you claim manipulation is fundamental to triangulation, and the page does not mention manipulation, so I encourage you to add content and citations there.
It's not surprising that there is not a plethora of journal articles on manipulation - its an elementary topic more likely to appear in a textbook.I am using these citations not just to show that these publications exist -- I am using it as evidence to support my view of current scientific consensus on manipulation in psychology, which I intend to use as the basis for rewriting the manipulation article: "manipulation has both clinical and subclinical manifestations, and for both of these there exist epidemiology, etiology and accurate measurement/assessment resources." This, along with the citations I have provided, are in contradiction with the claim that (psychological) scientific consensus considers manipulation to be "normal". Hence my efforts at discussion to establish consensus before editing the article again. I can see from the references you've provided there is probably enough content to write a wikipedia article on manipulation ethics as a social phenomena. However, this does not belong in the psychology page for manipulation.
I personally think being interdisciplinary nature of wikipedia articles is valuable... so don't really like arguments along the lines of "this is a psychology not philosophy". But think the article should be structured so that it clear where information comes from. I note the "psychology" in the title, but think this is mostly there to distinguish from other uses of the word (e.g. "manipulation of joints", "manipulation of an object"). I'd throw in that there is probably a whole bunch of content from the study of discourse and the humanities. Talpedia ( talk) 14:55, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
{{Disputed}}
tag on the page, and request
WP:DR to see if that can hopefully help resolve the disagreement between wiki-psyc and myself (
here). Also, @
Wiki-psyc: I will note that the summary I left on
WP:30 which was later moved to the top of the talk page subheading by you, was meant to be neutral and I ask that you don't copy my signed messages to move to different pages in future (see
WP:TPO for talk page guidelines)
Darcyisverycute (
talk) 05:18, 10 July 2022 (UTC)Yeah, I'm all for making a separate anthropology/philosophy articleHmm, I don't really see why this can't be dealt with through sections given how short the article is. I guess above a certain size trying to interleave covering different sources could make reading the article short. But given how short the article it feels a bit like we are arbitrarily limiting the scope of the article... and I can't really see a valid reason why? Talpedia ( talk) 10:01, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
"pathology of manipulation in psychology"The literature doesn't support this and therein lies the dispute. The length and organization of the article seems like a back foot to describes "manipulation" as a mental illness/pathology. I would suggest taht instead, you would need to find a substantial piece of work that supports your [WP:ORIGINAL] and if you can, you could then suggest modifications to the mental health section of the article. Wiki-psyc ( talk) 15:31, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 May 2022 and 6 August 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Hhavenh ( article contribs). Peer reviewers: Joyb3.
— Assignment last updated by Savannaj13 ( talk) 02:58, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2022 and 7 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mpatel48 ( article contribs). Peer reviewers: Kayoff, Psychcap, Srivera6, Gsch23, Tolber2K.
— Assignment last updated by Rahneli ( talk) 16:30, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
This article needs to be re-written by someone with a thorough understanding of human psychology’s history and the ability to write in a clear and relatively objective way. As it stands, the article seems to be pushing unsubstantiated opinions. I could not say with certainty that the author is fluent in english. 2601:602:8000:2536:2096:CC07:BC55:229 ( talk) 22:33, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
Je suis hacker par tout le monde 142.127.27.54 ( talk) 05:46, 24 December 2022 (UTC)