Jump to content

Talk:Alfred Adler/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Adlerian psychology

The two pages Classical Adlerian Psychotherapy and Classical Adlerian psychology are currently a little "single author" and might benefit from a wider set of views. Bovlb 04:07, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Collected works article

There is an article The Collected Clinical Works of Alfred Adler, which is, well, nothing but a list of collected works. Should the article be deleted and the list moved to the Publications section of this article? ArglebargleIV 06:06, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

References

Refs 1-5 seem suitable to Classical Adlerian psychology or Adlerian psychology, but not to his bio.
--Jerzy•t 14:44, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Answer to question on Adler and psychoanalysis

I can answer that question for you. From 1902-1911, he worked with Freud, and was indeed at that time known as a "psychoanalyst". Adler broke from Freud in 1911, and initially called his work "free psychoanalysis", but later called it "Individual Psychology". Although to a general lay public, Freud, Jung and Adler are often seen as the "Big Three" of psychoanalysis, in the strict sense, only Freud was a psychoanalyst. Jung was an analytical psychologist and Adler an individual psychologist. Use of these alternative terms helps to clarify how both Jung and Adler broke from Freud and developed their own schools of therapy. A. Carl 20:41, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

_ _ I am satisfied that at least for navigational purposes (Dab, LoPbN, etc.), users are likely to seek him as a psychologist, so i am listing him as if he were one on LoPbN, where fine distinctions like which Congolese or Dominican nationality, or which of the handful of types of "football" applies are irrelevant.
--Jerzy•t 14:40, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Psychiatry refers to the branch of medicine which is concerned with mental illness and generally gives the ability to prescribe medicine to patients, so it wasn't really an established field at this time. Psychoanalysis has no general requirement for medical training (although it often is required by some organisations), so psychoanalysts are not necessarily psychiatrists. However, whether the work of medically trained people in psychoanalysis, such as Adler, contributed to the formation of psychiatry I don't know.
--Phnord 12:41, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Psychoanalysis is a form of psychotherapy, not a profession. Adler was trainied as a physician, and as he practiced medicine, he became more interested behavioral correlates of medicine. I view him as the first "holistic" physician. As all psychiatrists are first trained as physicians, Adler can easily be viewed as a psychiatrist. However, he was not trained as a psychologist although his theory was and is a psychological one.

Article Needs Reference to Birth Order

I was very surprised to see this article did not refer to Adler's work on birth order position. It is true that some of Freud's writings on the Oedipus complex indicate that Freud acknowledged that position in the family makes a difference to personality development, but the concept of birth order received more emphasis from Alfred Adler. A reference to this would clarify the relevance of Adler to contemporary psychology. Although it is certainly true that the view that birth order has received many critics (such as Judith Harris), this work is germane to work on sibling differences in personality development. An emphasis on this concept would help to clarify how, implicit in Adler's views is a premise which would be now be shared by contemporary psychologists - that nonshared environment (the environment that children do not share with their siblings) has a bigger impact on development that shared environment (the environment siblings do share).A. Carl 11:32, 13 January 2006 (UTC) I have now added a wiki-link to the Wikipedia article on "Birth Order", although I do think that this particular article could do with some revamping. A. Carl 11:25, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Image

Whoever conserns himself with this article, please note that the "potentially harmful image" of A. A. that illustrates the article is under the threat of deletion.

I tried to fend off the m:copyright paranoia here twice[1][2] but I am tired of this and I wash my hands off since this is not the primary topic to which I contribute.

More can be found here. If anyone plans to do anything, good luck. --Irpen 22:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Resources

It is a little surprising that the only resource listed is not from a biography of Adler, his own works, a work on his psychology or an encylopedia of psychology. Can we add some resources that relate more closely to him or his work?Hgilbert 15:32, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Birth order

The last paragraph ends in an incomplete sentence about psychological studies of siblings. It would be interesting to read more. --Ben T/C 15:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Zing at the conservatives

The section on homosexuality seems to have a lot of opinion rather than facts. It seems quite biased, and descends into a discussion about the merits or lack thereof of homosexuality.

A telling line in the piece is this:

"Some social conservatives, who are primarily influenced by religious rather than scientific thought (eschewing "modernism"), believe that these attempts are placing inordinate emphasis on certain portions of the writings to support the "politics du jour" of "modern society". "

Why should we guess at the mental states of these 'conservatives'? I doubt they all admit to being unscientific in their inquiries, especially when it seems that they are making an exegetical point about Adler. I do not know much about Adler (I am reading this page as part of my introduction to his theories), but from the sounds of it these 'conservatives' are exactly right about the inordinate emphasis placed the snippets of evidence that Adler did not consider homosexuality to be a problem.

Is there some reference for the claim that the conservatives' opinions are based on religious rather than scientific thought? Better yet, is there a good reference for the claim? If there is, it should be included; and, if there is not, as I would suspect, the claim should be deleted or amended.

My concern is that the remark is symptomatic of the section on homosexuality. Why is the claim there at all, referenced or not? Parts of the section seem to be biased, opinion-based rants, with little relevance to what Adler thought, and I'm surprised that no-one has brought this clearly non-encyclopedic tone up before now. I expect this is another symptom of the bias of the writers of the section; a bias which is of no help to someone seeking information on Adler.

Most of the stuff in the homosexuality section is simply a rehash of contemporary controversies about homosexuality. It really doesn't belong in a biography of Adler at all, and I've removed it. Born Gay (talk) 01:14, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

This is a biography of Alfred Adler

Please, folks, this article is a biography of Alfred Adler. It's meant to be a discussion of his life and ideas, not a place to rehash contemporary controversies and debates about homosexuality. There are other articles for that. Accordingly, I've removed some rather opinionated and off-topic content that belongs in different articles. Born Gay (talk) 01:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I see the problem has been fixed. Thank you for that. Sorry for the consequences (below). From -- The guy who wrote 'Zing at the Conservatives' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.80.97.22 (talk) 09:09, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

During your recent edit, Born Gay (talk), a good deal of interesting material was removed for the reason of its being "off-topic and inappropriate discussion of contemporary controversies about homosexuality". I abhor edit wars, so I am appealing to you to return that informative paragraph to normal.  .`^) Painediss`cuss (^`.  16:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I abhor edit wars also, and I am a little miffed that you would think that I would engage in one. If you choose to restore that information, I won't remove it again, but please consider my reasons before reverting. I agree that the information removed was interesting and informative, but frankly, so what? In order to be included in an article, information has to be not only interesting and informative - it must also fall within the proper scope of the article, which this information does not. I'm disappointed that you did not respond to this point. In my view, such information would be vastly more appropriate to the article Homosexuality and psychology, which currently has very little content, which is a bit of a pity. Rather than revert the article back to the way it was before, I'm going to add the content deleted to Homosexuality and psychology, and place a link to it here. Doesn't that seem more reasonable? The fact that in 1973 the American Psychiatric Association decided that homosexuality wasn't a mental disorder is interesting and important - but it has nothing to do with Adler's life. Born Gay (talk) 20:43, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I've now carried out what I said I'd do above. I've also corrected the information, which was not quite correct. It is not accurate to say that the term "reparative therapy" refers mainly to the work of the late Charles Socarides. It is a term that can be used in a variety of different ways (including to refer to conversion therapy in general, or to the work of Elizabeth Moberly and Joseph Nicolosi in particular). I've never seen any reliable source define it as specifically Socarides's work. Born Gay (talk) 21:09, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Born Gay, you seem to be much better informed than I about all this, so I am happy to agree with the above. I'm just a tiny bit disappointed that you would take my "edit war" comment so negatively. It was meant only to stave off the ever-so-slight possibility that such a thing might happen. You and I don't know each other, so there was no way that I had of knowing how you would take to my just adding the info back in without consulting you. That's all I meant by it, honestly. I believe that the fact that Adler was strongly leaning away from homosexuality as a mental disorder makes that info you removed not just interesting, not just informative, but also highly relevant to that particular section of the article. However, if you prefer to update and improve another article with that info, and then link to the improved article from that section of the Adler article, I find that to be more than acceptable, also wise. Thank you very much for your counsel!  .`^) Painediss`cuss (^`.  05:42, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Might I suggest adding to "Adler then stated, 'Well, why don't we leave him alone.' On reflection, McDowell found this comment to contain 'profound wisdom'," the following sentence: "Ensuing developments in individual psychology have supported McDowell's conclusion." I've gone ahead and added that sentence to the article. You can of course alter it as you see fit.  .`^) Painediss`cuss (^`.  06:52, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

My personal view is that developments such as this, which belong to the period after Adler's death, are off-topic for the article, which is about Adler's life. So I don't see the addition as being either necessary or fully appropriate; properly speaking, this belongs in the Homosexuality and psychology article, not here. The reason why I reverted your recent edit was less because I'm opposed to including this material here, than because it looks a little like Wikipedia using itself as a source, which isn't permitted. If there is a proper source that could be used, then add the information if you honestly feel it belongs here, although as I say, I don't see that it does. With a proper source, I won't do any futher reversions. Born Gay (talk) 21:53, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Firstly, as a legacy, that information is very pertinent to Alfred Adler's life and shows the impact his wisdom had on future developments in psychology and psychoanalysis. Secondly, Wiki articles very frequently use explanatory internal links to other Wiki articles where more detailed information can be found. And as you will recall, there are three proper sources for that information that you moved to the H & P article. As you wish, I shall include those three sources again in the section. Thirdly, it is my understanding that the first step before removing another editor's addition, if one feels that the main objection is a lack of source(s), is to add the {{Fact}} template to show that a citation is needed. If a claim is doubtful, but not harmful, and a citation/source isn't added within a reasonable period of time, then and only then should the claim be removed. Ref.: Wikipedia:Cite#Unsourced_material  .`^) Painediss`cuss (^`.  01:17, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
I disagree, for four reasons. First, granted (and, on reflection, I do grant) that information about Adler's legacy should be here, it is not the case that recognition of gay and lesbian people's right to be left alone to live their lives has anything much do to with Adler. It is a development that has occured largely or entirely independently of him. Second, the same argument you make for retaining this information could equally well have been made for retaining other information that has now been shifted to Homosexuality and psychology - I don't see that you've given any reason why this information in particular must be retained (it actually has less to do with Adler than information that you've agreed can go elsewhere, including contemporary Adlerian views on homosexuality).
Third, the information is written in a POV way. Fourth, it appears to be unreliably sourced. One of the sources, the APA Division 44 website, (http://www.apadivision44.org/) simply leads to that organization's main page, and I don't see anything there that backs up the statement. If there is something within that website that supports the statement, then please link to it directly; its main page doesn't seem relevant at all. The same remarks apply to the other two sources. Born Gay (talk) 06:23, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
You said you abhored edit wars, so much for that. You said no more reverts, so much for that. Those are perfectly good sources used to back up a simple statement about the Adlerian legacy and wisdom as regards the eventual trend toward seeing homosexuality as natural, as a part of Nature, rather than some mental disorder that in and of itself requires psychotherapy. Have your way – I'm done with it!  .`^) Painediss`cuss (^`.  02:38, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
What I said was, that I wouldn't do more reverts if there was a proper source. I'm sorry, but I don't see what you did there as an appropriate way to use sources. It just won't do to find a psychology website that deals with gay issues and give it as a source on the grounds that maybe it contains something relevant to the statement being made. Like I said, if there's something specific on that website that supports the statement then please link to it directly (eg, link to a specific article within that website that supports the claim, not to its main page, which clearly doesn't). I'm sorry you didn't properly respond to that point, or my other points. Born Gay (talk) 02:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Born Gay, before I turn in, let me say that I realize your heart (and mind) are in the right place, but these three sources were used only to show the progressiveness of psychotherapy based on Adlerian wisdom. So your actions beg the question: Why are these sources okay in the section you created in another article, but they're not okay in the Alfred Adler piece?  .`^) Painediss`cuss (^`.  05:40, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
If there is anything within any of those websites that shows the progressiveness of psychotherapy based on Adlerian wisdom, then link to it directly. As I said, simply giving as a source the main page of those websites isn't proper sourcing. For the record, I added those sources to the Homosexuality and psychology article before I realized that they didn't properly support the statement. The Homosexuality and psychology article has a number of problems with sourcing, and that is only one of them. It obviously needs improvement. It would be more appropriate to discuss this on the talk page of the appropriate article, however. Born Gay (talk) 04:20, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I came here from Wikipedia:Third opinion. It does seem to me that a general discussion of the subsequent development of homosexuality and psychology is unwarranted in this article. We would need some references showing that Adler played an important role in this development for it to be relevant. If this article is on both Adler and the Adlerian School, then we could have some content specifically on the rethinking of this issue by modern Adlerians. - SimonP (talk) 12:23, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

article has an inferiority complex?

Just wanted to comment that several times, there is a strong emphasis on Adler 'not' being a student of Freud, of his coming up with concepts before others, (e.g., Anna Freud). The overall impression leads me to believe that much of the article is influenced by Adler fans interested in promoting an image of him. I suggest this but don't have the time to offer specific edits! But wanted to put it out there for consideration. Murmur74 (talk) 13:38, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

What is the significance ?

What is the significance of this paragraph?

Jarrod Williamson was one of his extremely homosexual patients, and was very depressed because he was expected to die in the next year from complications of gonorrhoea and "crabs".

Half of the story seems missing. Better to delete something that only confuses.

i think i read some where that he dealt with such, it sounds okay to support that 'fact',like we get a coincidence where he actually deals with the homosexuals, not just saying that he did. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mam renet (talk • contribs) 13:48, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

'Lost ashes of Alfred Adler return to Vienna'

--Mais oui! (talk) 14:09, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I have a copy of The Minutes of The Vienna Psychoanalytic Society that is on my desk here in front of me. The first meeting was on October 10th, 1906. So how could Adler be 'invited' to join The Vienna Psychoanalytic Society in 1907 (according to this article) when Adler was in attendance at the first meeting on October 10th, 1906? -- dgbainsky, August 10th, 2011. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dgbainsky (talk • contribs) 23:34, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Terms originally used by Adler

I see that this article uses the terms "social interest" and "inferiority complex". The term which Adler used in his original writings for the former, "Gemeinschaftsgefuhl", is better translated as "community feeling", although U.S. translations of this term used the term "social interest". More conspicuous was this article's use of the term "inferiority complex". Surely Adler's original term was "inferiority feeling"? To put "complex" in a term is more Jungian than Adlerian to me.


Adler used the term "inferiority complex" reluctently, because that's what everyone else called it. The inferiority complex isn't the "feelings of inferiority" as this article implies, but the exaggerated form. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.58.82.136 (talk) 14:42, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Why?

Why is the fact that he died of a heart attack listed in the info box? How is that just SO important that it should be there? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.26.234.233 (talk) 01:28, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I believe the middle initial W may be incorrect. The citation used to validate it almost certainly belongs to a different Alfred Adler, one associated with Math, etc., NOT Psychology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eheinr007 (talk • contribs) 22:01, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Citation I added.

I added this citation "Encyclopedia of Theory & Practice in Psychotherapy & Counseling By Jose A. Fadul (General Editor)", for this statement, "Adler spoke of safeguarding tendencies and neurotic behavior long before Anna Freud wrote the same phenomenon in her The Ego and the Mechanism of Defense." But upon investigating the quote here and the source saw that they and the paragraph they were in were exactly the same here on wikipedia and in the source. I'm worried that maybe the Encyclopedia of Theory and Practice in Psychotherapy copied it from wikipedia. If its the other way around, I think the citation should stay though. Can anyone figure out which copied which?--PaulBustion88 (talk) 06:49, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Responding to a remark in the text of article

On the derivation of "holism" I question this too "(etymology of holism: from ὅλος holos, a Greek word meaning all, entire, total)". It's a bit of a jump. In response to the intra comment: "traced to Holy-ness (doubt this)", I agree. But the history of the word has been one of confounding "wholism" (Jan Smuts) with "holism".

Holos, in Ancient Greek does mean entire, e.g. "holocaust". In the Greek, holocaustos (ὁλόκαυστος) is built from ὅλος "whole" and καυστός "burnt"; holograph (entirely written by self), etc But I doubt that whole and holy can be made to be etymologically related. Can someone with the time sort this? or make a clarifying note? See here for an article on the problem & development [3]. Thanks, Manytexts (talk) 10:55, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

According to Wiktionary at least, the English term "holy" derives from Old English "hāliġ", "hāleġ". The root comes from the Proto-Germanic language, the term "*hailagaz" ‎(“holy, bringing health”). It has cognates in other Germanic languages, but not in the Greek language.

"Whole" has a different etymology, from Proto-Germanic "*hailaz" ‎(“whole, safe, sound”)

The Greek term is "ὅλος" ("whole, entire, perfect, complete"). It derives from Proto-Indo-European "*solh₂wós", from "*solh₂-" ‎(“whole”). It has cognates in Sanskrit "sárva",Avestan "haurva", and Latin "salvus" and "sollus".

Holism derives from the Greek term, but has nothing to do with "holy".Dimadick (talk) 09:48, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Alfred Adler. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:01, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Adler and Freud

I have added a quote which indicates how Adler never saw himself as a disciple of Freud - Adler said of Freud "I only learnt from his mistakes". I think that the source where I read this was the Encyclopedia Brittanica. Vorbee (talk) 17:58, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Alfred_Adler/Archive_1&oldid=1136508284"