Talk:Pseudopsychology

	This Pseudoscience related article has been awarded SILVER status for quality. We like it, and you should too! See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Silverize?

Is it worthy? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 14:22, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

If we can add an image or two, most certainly. Тy^{passive-aggressive sigs are the best sigs} 14:31, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Reliability

This quote '...reliability (it's difficult to measure happiness!)' about positive psychology is incorrect. Reliability is about the stability of measurement, validity is about what is measured. I think the word 'reliability' should be replaced with 'validity'. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:42, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Done. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 16:53, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Topicality?

I found that some of meditation techniques are used in scientific psychology (3rd wave of behaviorism) as mindfulness and it application have scientifically proven effects. What you think about it? Should meditation be removed from this article? http://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/mindfulness-meditation-may-ease-anxiety-mental-stress-201401086967 --83.144.122.130 (talk) 15:54, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I think there's a difference between the way meditation is thought of in general and in psychology. Intentionally calming yourself using deep-breathing methods and counting is a known thing. Focusing on good things is also a known thing. That's why it means by meditation. Intentionally calming down and resting is calming and resting. Now, the magic parts of meditation are obviously bullshit. You can't do magic with it. But of course it's calming. It's supposed to be, and it's a combination of methods commonly used to calm down. That's the part that isn't bullshit. --PosthumanHeresy (talk) 01:16, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Behaviorism is not pseudoscience

"The behaviourist approach is perhaps one of the most scientific areas of research in Psychology. This approach believe that Psychology should be treated as a science; it strives to empirically support its theories using statistics gathered through lab experiments with carefully controlled variables and measurements." (...) "The main strength of the Behaviourist approach is in it’s scientific research methods; making results replicable, reliable and generalisable, therefore having the largest possible impact in society. This is particularly useful with the increasing emphasis on Psychology striving for the status of proper Science, through the use of rigorous methodology." [1]^{— Unsigned, by: 186.23.58.199 / talk / contribs}

It is categorized as an outdated model, which it is. Behaviorism has been superseded by newer schools of thought, that do incorporate some aspects of behaviorism. But, Behaviorism in itself is no longer regarded (in mainstream psychology) as a valid and/or comprehensive framework for describing human psychology, as advances in neurosciences have proven that there is a observable and potentially predictable internal component to externally observable behavior, something that classical behaviorism has no account for. Classical behaviorism views the mind as an unknowable black box, which any CT scan on a conscious person will quickly prove is false. Behaviorism fell out of favor within the psychology community at large in the 70s, coinciding with findings in new fields like Computational neuroscience and the cognitive revolution, as stated. Petey Plane (talk) 17:17, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

MBTI is not pseudoscience, according to RationalWiki

As stated in the page MBTI in this website, it is stated that the MBTI is not a pseudoscience as the dichotomies are similar to the Big Five personality tests. 60.53.146.158 (talk) 17:28, 04 June 2016 (UTC)

You should actually read the page you are referencing. It's inclusion as pseudopsychology is valid, and that view is shared by the majority of the professional community (at least those not financially invested in administering the tests). Petey Plane (talk) 17:02, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Repressing anger is not good

Generally this article is very good. However, I take major issue with the point on repressing anger and reference number 22. Not only is repressing anger a really bad idea that would get you very weird looks from any therapist specializing in anger management and behavioral health, but the reference linked is also dead, and isn't able to be verified properly because of it. I recommend reviewing this portion of the article. Ozzyboo (talk) 20:44, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

I think it's just worded poorly. The idea is that venting is not healthy at all, and you shouldn't be lashing out, yelling, punching pillows, breaking stuff, etc. to "let out steam" if you're mad. It seems that you can express anger, but you have to restrain yourself to an extent, and you need to accompany this with constructive problem-solving, refraining from blaming people/insulting people, making "I" statements, and exhibiting mindfulness. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 21:18, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

@Ozzyboo The source is archived, so it can still be viewed. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 ^talk 21:20, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Excellent explanation from the both of you. It would still be a good idea to at least rephrase this portion of the article. It can be interpreted incorrectly and, with matters of pseudoscience, leaving things up to interpretation is a very bad idea. Thank you for the quick and insightful response. Ozzyboo (talk) 22:19, 19 December 2021 (UTC)