Talk:Karen Horney/Archive 1

Archive 1

(untitled)

What about alienation from the self and the search for glory? These are important concepts in Horney's theory.

Your site posits two different birth days in September and two different decades for Karen Horney's birth. Which is it?

Notices, rating

Following the sourcing and citations, the notices within this article have been removed. As to an adaquate rating of this article; it seems to be around the "B" mark in terms of quality. In terms of importance; would "Mid" would prove adaquate considering proliferation and knowledge through the psychiatric community? -- D-Katana 14:49 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Plagiarism

Much of the page seems to be taken verbatim from [1].

prevectualious

What does this mean? I couldn't find it in 2 online dictionaries and a Google search only threw up this page and another on Karen Horney with the same text. Dajanes 20:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Nice catch; I searched the history of the article and found that it was added recently, along with some other rubbish, which has now been reverted. John Vandenberg 22:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Peer reviewer

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for this article. Please stike out comments that have been corrected or are not applicable.

• Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.^[?]
• This article has no images. Please see if there are any free use images that fall under the Wikipedia:Image use policy and fit under one of the Wikipedia:Image copyright tags that can be uploaded. To upload images on Wikipedia, go to Special:Upload; to upload non-fair use images on the Wikimedia Commons, go to commons:special:upload.^[?]
• See if possible if there is a free use image that can go on the top right corner of this article.^[?]
• There may be an applicable infobox for this article. For example, see Template:Infobox Biography, Template:Infobox School, or Template:Infobox City.^[?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
• If this article is about a person, please add {{persondata|PLEASE SEE [[WP:PDATA]]!}} along with the required parameters to the article - see Wikipedia:Persondata for more information.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.^[?]
• Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
  • While additive terms like “also”, “in addition”, “additionally”, “moreover”, and “furthermore” may sometimes be useful, overusing them when they aren't necessary can instead detract from the brilliancy of the article. This article has 15 additive terms, a bit too much.
  • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
• Avoid using contractions like (outside of quotations): don't, don't.
• As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2]^[?]
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Iosef ^{U T C} 16:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

S —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 60.229.130.21 (talk) 10:43, 21 April 2007 (UTC).

Vandalism

Someones vandalised this page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 60.229.130.21 (talk) 10:43, 21 April 2007 (UTC).

The need to restrict life practices

It's very unlikely that Horney intended this trend to be classed with the Aggressive type. My sense of Horney's theory is that this need goes best with the Compliant type. C.G. Boree, R. Niolon, and J. Feist (pg. 165) class it that way.

Ptypes 17:49, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

But I doubt that it would be apart of "moving towards people", as this point describes what is elsewhere in personality theory called "introversion". Introversion is by definition, "withdrawal", and basically a kind of rejection of people before they reject you, and not "compliance". If anything, I would say that #3 would be "away" (withdrawal) and 9 and 10 would be "against", (aggression, because these traits, though passive, lead to aggressive behavior when someone crosses the person's boundaries). 4 and 5 would be "extroversion" in terms of surface behavior ("attacking"), and 6, 7, and 8 would be extroversion in terms of its driving motivations (what one needs from others, rather than what one does to others). So "against" (in a more active sense) would fit for 4 and 5, but not directly for 6, 7 and 8. So really, 1 and 2 can be seen as "passive moving towards" (compliance), 3 as "active moving away or against" (withdrawal), 4 and 5 as "active moving towards/against" (aggression), 6, 7 and 8 as "passive moving towards/against" (the driving motives of aggression), and 9 and 10 as "passive moving away or against". (passive aggression).

Still, what matters here is what Horney said in the book. I haven't read it, so I don't know. I found it strange that #3 would initially be apart of the "Against" category, but eventually end up in the "Compliance" coping strategy corresponding to "Towards". You have made it consistent, but then if there is question about whether 3 was apart of against or towards, then it does warrant looking into, since it really doesn't seem like 3 is compliance or "towards" and not withdrawal or "away".Eric B 21:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, I read the three links, and the first one actually has #3 in both "compliance" and "withdrawal". I don't know if that is a typo, or if these are all interpretations of Horney. He also compares it with Adler and the four temperaments of Galen, but the coping strategies would more match the factors of the temperaments, and not the temperaments themselves. Melancholy (Avoiding)={3}+{9, 10}; Choleric (ruling/Dominant)={4, 5}+{6, 7, 8}+{9, 10}; Phlegmatic (Getting/Leaning)={3}+{1, 2} and Sanguine (Adler "Socially Useful", but omitted in the comparison)={1, 2}+{6, 7, 8}.Eric B 21:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I overlooked your responses. As far as I know, Horney never actulaly listed the 10 needs by category. But she mentioned them in her discussions of the 3 "movements," or types. These other psychologists and authors are making their own lists based on her texts. I believe that she does mention #3 both in connection with "moving toward" and "moving away from." I've only seen one article on the web by a professor of psychology that lists #3 with the "moving against," and I doubt that there's any textual basis for it. I don't think that this situation calls for basing the categoration of Horney's needs on our own theories, though. Ptypes 16:53, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Are you serious?

Are you for real? She was into Psychosexual development with that name? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.88.49.41 (talk) 22:01, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually I believe that the pronunciation of her name that's listed is incorrect. Merriam-Webster gives the pronunciation as "hor nI", with a long I sound. I've also heard psychologists pronounce it that way. Not that that will stop some people from thinking her last name is funny, but oh well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hillacinth (talk • contribs) 17:09, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes. The pronunciation of her name is incorrect in this article. It is pronounced "horn-EYE". It rhymes with Lorelei.

German or German-American?

She settled in the United States and lived out her adult life there. Was she ever a citizen? Does it matter? Mbarbier (talk) 15:30, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Section: Feminine psychology

In the first sentence under this heading, Horney is referred to as a major pioneer in feminine psychiatry. The heading says psychology and her book claims her beliefs under the field of psychology. Could we get some clarity here? Eornumxela (talk) 16:41, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Close paraphrasing and outright copyvio

Looks like I'm not the first to notice this, but I've removed a large chunk of text copied verbatim from this (most likely unreliable) source. Running it through a duplicate detector turns up some seemingly significant hits as well, leaving questions about close paraphrasing. Can't give it a full analysis right now, but thought I should at least say something about it. 22:23, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

What made her become "Karen" and discard “Clementine Theodore”? And when?

According to the Encyclopedia of Women's History in America (cf.. [2]) her given names had originally been "Clementine Theodore", (and "Danielsen" had been her family name) in times of her childhood.

So the given names originally were without "Karen". Thus she apparently discarded "Clementine Theodore" later and adopted "Karen" instead. But when? After her mother had left her "bible-throwing" authoritarian father? After her own marriage to Oskar Horney? After she separated from him, - after he had become a weak, ill and moneyless individual? After her subsequent emigration to the USA in 1932? After her failed relationship to Erich Fromm? (Who was much younger than she was.)

According to the Neue Deutsche Biographie (see here: [3]) her maiden name was just Karen Danielsen right from the start, - which is obviously wrong.

Discarding one’s given name is always something highly emotional. Even with a psychoanalyst.

So, who knows the trigger? When did it happen? Why Karen? (Why not, - say - Josephine?)

And why is Wikipedia the place, where this question ist asked first? --91.3.215.35 (talk) 16:29, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Why the change from Danielsen to Horney?

Folk have already commented on the psycho-sexual thingy and her lastname being "Horney". Furthermore to the aforesaid, why exactly did the family lastname changed from "Danielsen" to "Horney"? The article weirdly lacks any mention of this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:411:1600:226:8FF:FEDC:FD74 (talk) 11:35, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Plainly: She married Oskar Horney, whom she had met in Freiburg /Germany when they both were students. --93.192.192.28 (talk) 15:27, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Karen Horney. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110623135046/http://www.webster.edu/~woolflm/horney.html to http://www.webster.edu/~woolflm/horney.html

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) 11:18, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Neo-Freudian

It is rather jarring to read the first paragraph of this article and see the last sentence say "she is considered a neo-Freudian." How could someone who went against Freud so be labeled as someone carrying on his work? Did we call Martin Luther a neo-Catholic? Philmv (talk) 02:27, 27 November 2017 (UTC)