Talk:List of social psychology theories
 | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Self-determination theory
[edit]how about it? does it count? --58.49.24.245 (talk) 05:05, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Merge with social psychology article?
[edit]I think it may be worthwhile merging this article with the broader social psychology article?Mrm7171 (talk) 22:44, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
- Hi Mrm7171. I would argue against the merge. I think the social psychology article would be best served by moving toward a more overarching description of the history, methodologies, and philosophies of the field. In my mind lists of social psychological work distracts from that contextual information. As I have mentioned a while ago, I already think the articles is too cluttered with content of that type. Does this resonate with you? Cheers Andrew (talk) 06:29, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
- That sounds fair enough. I also have now read and agree with a lot of your comments on social psychology talk page. Thanks for the response.Mrm7171 (talk) 07:03, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Evolutionary psychology
[edit]There is something circuitous here in that evolutionary psychology is fundamentally concerned with societal groups, and is included in the list of social psychology theories here, and yet the introduction to the social psychology page states: Social psychology theories tend to be specific and focused, rather than global and general. Evolutionary psychology seems to me to be an overarching construct, and to be general and global, even if (some) work in the field is specific, and yet while being included here as one of the theories of social psychology social psychology itself is is defined elsewhere as tending to exclude the general or global!?! It would seem that if this page exists then evolutionary psycholgy should be here and yet if it is here then that the social psychology page should be aammended. LookingGlass (talk) 16:54, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
- Hi LookingGlass. I would concur that evolutionary psychology is an overarching approach to understanding human behaviour. I do not think that it qualifies as a particular psychological theory, let alone a social psychological theory specifically. I have therefore been bold and gone ahead with a removal. Cheers Andrew (talk) 00:18, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
- Intersting, but can you say on what grounds you do not consider this to be the case? Evolutionary psychology, the article concerned states, is a "theoretical approach". Personally I cannot distinguish clear water between a "theoretical approach" and a "theory", as by definition the one seems to be an innate part of the other. Its "theory", if it can be said to have just one, seems to be about social behaviours. Such a theory is similar in nature to that of any other theoretical approach or school or group. I cannot though see how the decisions to include or not to include items in these list type articles can be any more than OR. They seem subjective personal aide memoires rather than encyclopaedic article. Deletion? LookingGlass (talk) 10:09, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
- Hi LookingGlass. I certainly agree that "theory" is a term that can be used widely enough to include evolutionary psychology. However, in the context of this list article I think that there are tighter standards that should be applied, and ones that we can turn to that get us past subjective assessment. Markovsky for example defines a theory as "a set of explicit, abstract, rigorous and logically related statements that explains or predicts a general class of phenomena"[1]). Evolutionary psychology as an approach would not qualify against this definition on the basis that it does not make explicit predictions. It would instead be the more specific formulations within evolutionary psychology that would qualify. Does this resonate with you? Cheers Andrew (talk) 03:48, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
- My opinion is that there is no way out of the circularity. The initial premise here is that social psychology theories are distinct in that they are tightly focused. To support this you have put forward a definition of theory that seeks to exclude those theories that are not tightly focused. More importantly perhaps is the fact that Markovsky doesn't get to define theory. The word has been in the public domain since the 1590's and as such has become defined through common usage. Markovsky is putting forward a meta-theory, a theory about theories, and no problem with trying to do that, but the article in not A Markovskian List of Social Psychologies. Such a list would in any case only be a subset of the available theories as Markovsky's is clearly not the only definition. Evolutionary psychology theorises that social behaviours are essentially biological phenomena, and ergo that these can be understood/predicted via the history of the biology of the species. The evidence seems to me to support this. I can't see why "a set of ... statements" is required rather than just one, but if so my simple statement for instance could be split into several, as could any other statement. Focusing in more closely, the word "explicit" in Markovsky's definition seems to be redundant or even tautological, ditto "abstract", and I find it hard to see how a statement can be other than "rigorous and logical" unless it were a statement of non-sense. LookingGlass (talk) 19:22, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
- Hi LookingGlass. In language a single term may be used to mean different things at different times. This is something you should get yourself accustomed to generally, but it is especially important to accept this when navigating the social sciences. You will find the entire field unintelligible if you do not accept the reality that social scientists will draw on familiar terms and give them particular meaning for use in a particular context.
- With this in mind, please recall that Markovsky's definition of "theory" was provided as an example (if you have beef with the particulars of his definition then I would recommend you read the article in full where he makes clear his rationale). He is not a rogue theorist and he is certainly not alone in laying down a stricter standard for what qualifies as a theory. If you would like further examples of that approach then don't hesitate to ask (I would recommend Gigerenzer's 1998 paper for a fun starting point[2]). Alternatively, you could take a look at the Scientific theory article right here in wikipedia. That to should give you a sense of the particular meaning given to the term "theory" in scientific contexts. Cheers Andrew (talk) 01:56, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
- My opinion is that there is no way out of the circularity. The initial premise here is that social psychology theories are distinct in that they are tightly focused. To support this you have put forward a definition of theory that seeks to exclude those theories that are not tightly focused. More importantly perhaps is the fact that Markovsky doesn't get to define theory. The word has been in the public domain since the 1590's and as such has become defined through common usage. Markovsky is putting forward a meta-theory, a theory about theories, and no problem with trying to do that, but the article in not A Markovskian List of Social Psychologies. Such a list would in any case only be a subset of the available theories as Markovsky's is clearly not the only definition. Evolutionary psychology theorises that social behaviours are essentially biological phenomena, and ergo that these can be understood/predicted via the history of the biology of the species. The evidence seems to me to support this. I can't see why "a set of ... statements" is required rather than just one, but if so my simple statement for instance could be split into several, as could any other statement. Focusing in more closely, the word "explicit" in Markovsky's definition seems to be redundant or even tautological, ditto "abstract", and I find it hard to see how a statement can be other than "rigorous and logical" unless it were a statement of non-sense. LookingGlass (talk) 19:22, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
- Hi LookingGlass. I certainly agree that "theory" is a term that can be used widely enough to include evolutionary psychology. However, in the context of this list article I think that there are tighter standards that should be applied, and ones that we can turn to that get us past subjective assessment. Markovsky for example defines a theory as "a set of explicit, abstract, rigorous and logically related statements that explains or predicts a general class of phenomena"[1]). Evolutionary psychology as an approach would not qualify against this definition on the basis that it does not make explicit predictions. It would instead be the more specific formulations within evolutionary psychology that would qualify. Does this resonate with you? Cheers Andrew (talk) 03:48, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
- Intersting, but can you say on what grounds you do not consider this to be the case? Evolutionary psychology, the article concerned states, is a "theoretical approach". Personally I cannot distinguish clear water between a "theoretical approach" and a "theory", as by definition the one seems to be an innate part of the other. Its "theory", if it can be said to have just one, seems to be about social behaviours. Such a theory is similar in nature to that of any other theoretical approach or school or group. I cannot though see how the decisions to include or not to include items in these list type articles can be any more than OR. They seem subjective personal aide memoires rather than encyclopaedic article. Deletion? LookingGlass (talk) 10:09, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
You glide over my point with erudiction U3964057. If you re-read your reply you will realize it has no relevance to what I wrote, if anything it supports my point. Thanks for your offer but I will respectfully decline. LookingGlass (talk) 15:34, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
- p.s Using < ref > on Talk pages results in improper formatting, so I have removed the tags where you used them but left the references in your post. This is not an article but a threaded conversation. It's not a p*****g contest so please refrain from adding your choice of reference to what I write. Disagreement with you does not imply either ignorance or incomprehension. I have also corrected the internal referenc you used (it has to respect the case of the actual article). As with this list, am all too familiar with the wikipedian view of the world. I believe there are more who do not agree with that perspective than do, but wikipedians are zealous if they are anything so we others simply give way to get on with more productive tasks. Enjoy! LookingGlass (talk) 15:32, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
- Hi LookingGlass. I am sorry but I do not see how I have strayed from the topic, nor how I have wound up supporting your point. Are you willing to elaborate here?
- In terms of my intext citations, I have reverted to my original choice of formatting as there is no guideline against including reference notes within a talk page. If anything you could have used this template, which I have now added in. Also, I don't know where you think I have added my choice of references to what you have written. Again, I would need you to make this clearer to me (maybe a diff would help). Cheers Andrew (talk) 02:13, 1 April 2015 (UTC)