This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
Hello
Kiwi. That's a great link, but I think you will find that the many
WP:RS on that list (in between a few others) would only serve to endorse the deletion last night. Just entre nous...the source really was a VERY long way off what Freud actually said...to be honest only the first paragraph of the article even came close. The rest is just
WP:OR waffle off at a tangent of his own. Apart from which, you KNOW as well as I do that unqualified financial analysts don't meet
WP:RS for psych articles, nor should they... --
Zeraeph17:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Didn't say he was, Zerph, for he should footnote and support each assertion, as well he could, but for his dislike of fetching the book from the shelf and searching for the page. Of course, he is increasingly taking the time and trouble over the past years to more precisely cite. Indeed, should the full text of all psychiatric and psychology texts be scanned into a searchable database, he would immediately go back in time and add all the detailed citing throughout to demonstrate that what he writes is not works of fiction, but treatises of what OTHER highly recognized authorities in the field have written.
But that aside, to suggest that a theory that Freud advanced so very long ago was a fait accompli is purely preposterous. Psychology is an evolving understanding of the human condition, both the inner dynamics and those between individuals and social groups. To propose that no other qualified professional in the next hundred years is entitled to expand on that original hypothesis and to demonstrate its presence as a unifying principle demonstrates an incomplete understanding of the formal study of psychology.
Kiwi18:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Kiwi, there are plenty of
WP:RS for Freud on the "Narcissism of Small Differences" without resorting to self published amateurs of dubious repute (who ARE, themselves, a bit in the habit of publicly condemning Wikipedia for citing self published amateurs of dubious repute
[1][2] so we must be EXTRA careful not to give them any justification. --
Zeraeph18:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)reply
is this part of the phenomenon?
Is this related to the fact that people are more revulsed by "monsters" the closer they resemble human beings; or that the more realistically animated characters in films seem "weirder" than the less animated ones? or is that a different Wikipage?
Gzuckier14:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)reply
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
Hello
Kiwi. That's a great link, but I think you will find that the many
WP:RS on that list (in between a few others) would only serve to endorse the deletion last night. Just entre nous...the source really was a VERY long way off what Freud actually said...to be honest only the first paragraph of the article even came close. The rest is just
WP:OR waffle off at a tangent of his own. Apart from which, you KNOW as well as I do that unqualified financial analysts don't meet
WP:RS for psych articles, nor should they... --
Zeraeph17:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Didn't say he was, Zerph, for he should footnote and support each assertion, as well he could, but for his dislike of fetching the book from the shelf and searching for the page. Of course, he is increasingly taking the time and trouble over the past years to more precisely cite. Indeed, should the full text of all psychiatric and psychology texts be scanned into a searchable database, he would immediately go back in time and add all the detailed citing throughout to demonstrate that what he writes is not works of fiction, but treatises of what OTHER highly recognized authorities in the field have written.
But that aside, to suggest that a theory that Freud advanced so very long ago was a fait accompli is purely preposterous. Psychology is an evolving understanding of the human condition, both the inner dynamics and those between individuals and social groups. To propose that no other qualified professional in the next hundred years is entitled to expand on that original hypothesis and to demonstrate its presence as a unifying principle demonstrates an incomplete understanding of the formal study of psychology.
Kiwi18:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Kiwi, there are plenty of
WP:RS for Freud on the "Narcissism of Small Differences" without resorting to self published amateurs of dubious repute (who ARE, themselves, a bit in the habit of publicly condemning Wikipedia for citing self published amateurs of dubious repute
[1][2] so we must be EXTRA careful not to give them any justification. --
Zeraeph18:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)reply
is this part of the phenomenon?
Is this related to the fact that people are more revulsed by "monsters" the closer they resemble human beings; or that the more realistically animated characters in films seem "weirder" than the less animated ones? or is that a different Wikipage?
Gzuckier14:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)reply