User talk:Dr Joe Kiff Archive - 3

Journal article of the week?
Hi Joe. I recently read an excellent article that I think you might enjoy. The authors basically argue that psychologists don't put enough emphasis on rigorous conceptual analysis, (with an inordinate amount of methodological emphasis).


 * Machado, A., Lourenco, O., & Silva, F. J. (2000). Facts, concepts, and theories: The shape of psychology's epistemic triangle. Behavior and Philosophy, 28, 1-40.

I had an idea. Remember when we first started this, we attempted to have an article of the month or week? How about starting a journal article of the week? Perhaps put the abstract on the Main Page with a link to the full article? Jaywin 16:58, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I like that idea...I'd be glad to help with that.  Dr. Becker-Weidman  Talk 17:31, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes excelllent. Lets do it . The challenge will be to keep it going. Set up a linked nomination page to see if we can get others interested to suggest other candidates. Dr Joe Kiff 19:26, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm glad to see you guys like the idea. Check out Psychology Wiki:Featured journal article nominations. We can discuss how to go about this on that page's discussion page if you'd like. Jaywin 19:35, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Vasoactive intestinal peptide......
hi...id like to know your source for saying that Vasoactive intestinal peptide is produced in the pancreas..im am studying human physiology and apparently it seems unclear where it is produced...if it is the small intestine or the pancreas...please let me know as i can then present this information to my mentors and get clarity on this. thank you. -joseph
 * Thanks for the question. I have done a bit of work on the article. Updated it from WP and added in a section of references on secretion. If you could add to that section when you have sorted out the information we would be most grateful. Dr Joe Kiff 15:27, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Message for Melanie
I did see what you wrote and appreciated your comments. You did the right thing taking it down though - I am so easily embarrassed by praise!!!. Perhaps we can talk about it when we meet next and discuss ways you might help with the site. Dr Joe Kiff 00:11, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Fresh eyes here!
Hi Joe. Thanks for the message :-)

I left a comment at Psychology Wiki talk:Featured journal article nominations if you want to check it out.

Also, I noticed you were making some animal categories. I'll try to do a little research and see if I can get a category taxonomy that corresponds with scientific classification. Jaywin 00:36, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I left another comment at the featured article discussion. And I agree that the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature sounds like the way to go for animal classification. Also, for the animal pages, I've been using the comparative psychology browser template for the top of the page: ...that one seemed most appropriate for those pages to me. And the banner page is at MediaWiki:Sitenotice. Jaywin 13:08, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Main Page sandbox

 * Check out User:Jaywin/Main page. See what you think; tweak it if necessary. :-) Jaywin 21:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * So how do you like the new main page? And if you want to send an e-mail to the authors of the featured journal article, they're e-mails are on the first page of the article. Jaywin 21:57, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

May Featured Article
Hi Joe. Just reminding you that May will be here soon. We have to decide on a Featured Journal Article. I've nominated one already. Would you like to vote for that one, or nominate a different one? Jaywin 10:27, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Double Bind in the Interaction
I read the information you listed. Still can't figure out how to change the red letters (scarlet letters?) which cause a section to disappear, following the words "...what to the Newtonian looks like chaos" (level 2 sections: History, Complexity in Communication and the first paragraph of A Classical Example are left out). Also lacking in the Psychology Wiki are the notes (and references?) at the bottom of the page from Wikipedia Double Bind. Is it that the lack of a section of notes to refer to is the cause of the difficulty? --Margaret9mary 02:11, 29 May 2009 (UTC) The scarlet letters say: "Cite error: closing missing for tag. --~
 * Thank you for correcting that mix-up. I figured it was a result of computer syntax that only an insider would know.--~

Block of Joeyaa
Hello there. I'm a fellow admin of Joeyaa on Avatar Wiki. Joey is one of the biggest anti-vandalism volunteers on Wikia, and his three edits here are all related to this. He does not engage in sockpuppetry, which I believe to be the reason you blocked him. I believe that he has sent you an email requesting that he be unblocked, and I recommend this course of action. Thanks. Wjxhuang, the 888th Avatar  {Talk} 07:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Joe, if you want me to look into this, just provide me with that user's user name and I will take care of it.  Dr. Becker-Weidman  Talk 07:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! ~Joey~  ^Talk^  14:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Art thanks for the offer but it was just as easy for me to do it as I had to use the blocklog to find out the name - it was my mistake - but I could remember the circumstances so just unblocked him. Cheers. Dr Joe Kiff 14:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Glad it worked out. Take care.  Dr. Becker-Weidman  Talk 23:31, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Sahaj Marg
Hi Joe

Can you please look at page Sahaj Marg. It's got a category of "cult" attached at the bottom. This page was probably copied off a highly POV version (long gone now) from Wikipedia.

Can you please take the cult category off this page?

Thanks!
 * This has now been done.

marathi_mulgaa

Torture, Psychology, and the APA
Here's a good article at The Huffington Post entitled, Torture, Psychology, and Daniel Inouye: The True Story Behind Psychology's Role in Torture. This might even make for a good article on the Main Page or even the header. Jaywin 12:20, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * As this is an academic site I feel we ought to stick to professional sources where there is controversy. As an interim measure I have put a link to the article on the torture page, along with a link to the APA statement. In the long run I feel the substantive points made by Bryant (eg the role of psychologists in torure etc) should be backed up by more suitable discussion and references. I will copy this discussion across to the talk page there to set up the discussion. Dr Joe Kiff 00:13, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

A Living Process
I can't thank you enough for leaving the link to the Huffington Post article on The True Story Behind Psychology's Role in Torture. Please keep it there on your talk page! Objectivity is achieved through the prolonged accumulation of anecdotal evidence and a seeking of consensus, and this article--and the comments it is evoking--is part of that extended process. As a parallel example, consider the subject of child molestation. It was addressed by Freud in his 1896 Aetiology of Hysteria; he was threatened with ostracization by the medical community of Vienna until he recanted; he then created the "seduction theory" (which somehow managed to keep alive the subject of unhealthy sexuality--by projecting it on to the victims and calling it a fantasy). The reality of child molestation only resurfaced and broke through into public awareness in the 1970s as a result of discussion groups in the women's lib movement (for which I'm profoundly grateful, even if I think they went too far on other issues).

Objectivity can't go so far that it denies our humanity. The issue of addressing torture is a very important step towards the greater health of the field of psychology. ("Physician, heal thyself" (first and then you will see better how to heal your patients) --Margaret9mary 00:46, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Religion and masturbation
What was wrong with the second version of the article? How do I deal with the subject here? Proxima Centauri 12:32, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd be pleased if you could find me any good sources as I fear the religious groups have influenced Google and I haven't found any.

Masturbation: All points of view Is this good enough? I don't want to waste more time writing stuff that gets deleted. Proxima Centauri 16:38, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It was the lack of references that I was concerned about. I have listed references on the Masturbation article but on a quick glance there doesnt seem to be anything there to help. If I find anything I will list them Dr Joe Kiff 09:54, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Heh. If you will tighten the standards, why not make something about almost 14.000 articles copied from Wikipedia? (http://psychology.wikia.com/index.php?title=Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:EnWP&1000 I counted 14 pages of 1000 each) What is the point of this wiki if most content comes from Wikipedia? Is that "professional"? I did not know it took professionals just to copy from Wikipedia, and the list is a growing list, from what I can see at RecentChanges. I think that a professional could question the quality and accuracy of some Wikipedia articles... or could write something better, from scratch. This way, the forest hides the trees... there is too much "noise" on the site it is hard to find the really original (written for this site) information that is not a stub. A new user would have a hard time (like me) trying to find which content is REALLY written in here and not in Wikipedia. It is an artificial way to enlarge a wiki... For instance, imagine I am interested in Cognitive science. I go there and what do I find? A copy of the Wikipedia article. And if I check the links from the same paragraph, I get the same. What would I gain, if I have already read those at Wikipedia? What does this wiki add? This is a real question. I want to know the resources this wiki has created (not copied) specifically for that broad topic, if any.


 * And that is only one topic. I am completely lost on this site since I cannot find the created content. And I guess other new users and even professionals would have the same problem. If you expect professionals to come to this site, there should be a way to find actual Psychology Wiki content and not Wikipedia's. That way, it would be better if those professionals go and edit directly to Wikipedia if they want to enlarge the Wikipedia copies. Well, I know Wiki encourages copying from Wikipedia... but usually for small wikis, in the beginning stage. I wonder if they had 14.000 copies in mind. That's in case anyone bothers about quality in a wiki that purports to be professional but from what I have seen the professionalism lies on Wikipedia... until I receive a list of original articles and not mere copies.


 * I had always wondered why this wiki was one of the biggest at Wikia and voila, Wikipedia is the real wiki behind this ton of articles. Only 44% of this site is supposed to be written here. I wonder if professionals would be attracted to such a copycat site... Well, maybe the 11.000 who are supposedly not are good articles. So, it would be better if Proxima writes her article and Wikipedia and then someone copies it here, right? Well, I understand what you say about references, if this wiki pretends to be of academic and scientific nature. There should be a warning somewhere on the wiki, saying to people that only psychologists or experts in the field can write in here or that amateurs should write in such a way that it looks like an academic paper. Remember that Wikia is targeted for amateurs, so it should be clearly noted that this wiki is not. Also, warning not to put original research but just citing what others have discovered and studied. It could help prevent these misunderstandings.


 * You make a good point here too and I will try to make it clearer on the Main Page. I think the amateur/professional distinction is a critical one Dr Joe Kiff 09:54, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

P.S. In any case, excuse me if this seems a bit out of context or if I sound conflictive. I am just expressing my ideas about this. It's just that I had watched this wiki for months and I cannot understand why so many Wikipedia stuff in here. Just have in mind that all that bunch of Wikipedia could scare away users. As it did to me, when I planned to collaborate... or at least read something different to Wikipedia, months ago. This is one of the cases when big is small, from a Systems Theory point of view. I must go back to real publications, books, for instance. Maybe I expected too much from such a huge wiki. --Davinci - talk 20:25, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * No you make absolutely the right points and the dificulties you raise are the consequences of the strategy we have adopted. In setting out, we had the idea that knowledge within the discipline has a structure and by using the articles from wikipedia as placeholders we are now at the point of aligning the material to the APA thesaurus as the first step. In doing this we can demonstrate to the profession that we can develop and manage the site with limited interference and that the technology is here to develop a comprehensive reliable statement of the current state of knowledge in all areas of the discipline where there is significant literature. In doing this we can further conceptually map the science. Having done this digitally we believe it will open up new possibilities for managing information in the science and it will provide a framework for further developments. This all hinges now on the professional societies taking up the challenge to coordinate contributions and develop a system of peer review to improve and approve the content. We are at the point of opening negotiations with the British Psychological Society. Perhaps we have not made it clear enough that conceptually this is only an initial draft of the site. Importing from Wikipedia gives temporary meat to the bones, enables later contributors to understand which links are available, it enables us to convey our ideas about the knowledge structure, the possible popularity and need for the site (we will be visited by over 2 million users this year) and to try to overcome the prejudice against the technology amongst the academic community. I want to say to that I appreciate that much of the information on Wikipedia in our area is of use and to that degree there is no need to reinvent the wheel, but obviously a coordinate professionally organised approach will improve it substantially. We are playing a long game here and it will take time to see if our strategy will work. Please do contribute if you can maintain academic standards Dr Joe Kiff 08:57, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Now my thoughts are clear. I will begin reading the site now and see if I can help. --Davinci - talk 12:48, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

cogntion
Hello,

can anyone give me some ideas of method to treat patients that having cognitive or perceptual diffculties.

You can try to look at CBT - cognitive behavior therapy and see if you like it, also it matter what kind of cognitive disorder the person has.

let me know if you like the idea--69.114.229.43 03:53, September 16, 2009 (UTC)

Hello Doctor Joe Kiff
I wonder if you could direct me,advise of your professional opinion on the subject of, or where I might find papers (fee-free) on the possiblility of locus of control being biological rather than learned through environment/experience/parenting styles?

--71.224.190.56 03:46, December 6, 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi thanks for the question. My own view would be that there is a substantial genetic component in locus of control and that it is likely to reflect introversion and extroversion which themselves seem genetically based and reflect basic patterns of nervous system organization. However I am not aware of any articles. If you find any perhaps you could add to the appropriate articles. Dr Joe Kiff 11:53, December 6, 2009 (UTC)

Worldwide Governance Indicators for fomat of country list
Hi, Joe. I noticed the above addition to your user page. I don't know what it means, but there could be some country lists on the Flu Wiki that you could adapt. — Robin Patterson (Talk) 23:49, January 24, 2010 (UTC)

Confusion
Hi, Dr Joe Kiff, my name is Josh Lepak and I edited article "power" yesterday and it looks like my edits were reverted back to your original. I read the beginners guide, but I am still confused as to my mistake. I am an academic, and I have been reading extensively for years. I will major in psychology and hopefully go beyond that. I would appreciate if you let me know what I can do to help with the site. I love the work people have done and I would love nothing more than to help out.

Th3nd00rs 13:36, February 23, 2010 (UTC)Josh Lepak

Hey Dr Joe, thank you for addressing my concerns. I was attempting an edit on the page "consciousness", because I wanted to write a section on the bicameral mind theory, and I have references from Julian Jaynes, but they are books. I am not sure how to reference books that I have read in physical form. Also, I don't know how to make a new section, for bicameral mind doesn't appropriately fit under any of the current sections.

Th3nd00rs 13:51, February 24, 2010 (UTC) Josh

Properly cite Wikipedia
Could you please cite Wikipedia when you copy them? There is a Template:Wikipedia for doing so. Thanks again. The MarioGalaxy2433g5  { talk /contribs/Logs} 23:30, April 10, 2010 (UTC)

multiple choice page?
Is there a reason 80% of the page is sources? It looks odd, and I don't understand the necessity of having hundreds of references.
 * Hi Josh. We have collected the references together as a start to the process of building other pages off this one. From a professional point of view the existing article is very weak and can be expanded. Then there are a number of technical issue which deserve an article of their own such as item order effects, mathematical issues in interpretation, use in education and clinical settings etc.tce The idea is that we develop the structure of the Wiki following the logic of the literature. By the end of the exercise all the main references in the discipline should be included in articles that are logically focused on particular research or theoretical questions. It is for this reason we are not simply adding to Wikipedia but rather using their initial content to help construct a base on which the profession can proceed to build a far more detailed and professionally relevent resource. I hope this makes things clearer and anwers your questions. Come back to me if you have further queries. Dr Joe Kiff 13:48, April 12, 2010 (UTC)

Ok, that makes sense. We are using more specific reference based material in terms of the professions of psychology. Joshlepaknpsa 14:11, April 12, 2010 (UTC)

Ad question
Hi Joe, I have a question on your ad preferences. We are currently trying out some link ads on various wikis. These appear as double-underlined links in green (see here for an example page. The question is, do you think these are less intrusive than the in-content box ads? And would you be interested in us testing them on this wiki? Please let me know what you think. Thanks -- sannse (talk) 00:17, April 21, 2010 (UTC)

Request
Dr Joe Kiff, I have enjoyed the times we have talked about various topics in psychology, and I want to request that you read the user talk page on delusion. I make a lot of logical points that I do not believe the moderator takes seriously enough. I edited your definition on delusion, and a few others that have been reverted, but at this time the moderator agreed to talk about the pages. We started discussing delusion, and I mainly would like to word the definition more appropriately in a linguistic sense, but also in which aspects are stressed. I agree with your definition completely, but I think that the definition can be improved greatly for a professionally based wiki on psychology. I would appreciate it if you read the discussion and message me your opinion concerning my reasoning for the changes made so that I can understand if you want my help with this site.Joshlepaknpsa 16:40, April 26, 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you Dr Kiff, I usually have logical information and just don't know where it belongs. I have a lot of sources, but then again there are some things I write where I am my own source. This is because I have an abundance of unpublished papers, and am not sure what to do with them. Do you have any suggestions?

I think it is one of the advantages of a cooperative editing site that we can help each other. I am very keen on the idea that we are all different, and that we should seek out people who complement ourselves when we are building teams, rather than choosing people who are all alike. It takes a lot of tolerance and humility on all sides but when it works it can be very productive.

You can publish your work here if you like, see these two links.
 * Disseminating psychological knowledge
 * House electronic journals

I am not sure how up to date the instructions for publication perhaps we can work these up together if necessary.

In the next couple of months I will inaugerate our peer review system for all the pages on the wiki and I am hopeful that this will open the way forward for people like yourself to have your work evaluated.

With reference to our own work we should only use those ideas and concepts that have been peer reviewed and it will be a good discipline for you if you look at every sentence you write and reference it. This can be taken too far but it does help make the article pithy and relevent to the mainstream of psychological thinking.Dr Joe Kiff 13:16, April 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * I would love to have my work peer reviewed, so I look forward to that. I will also try to use the links you have listed to see what they offer.Joshlepaknpsa 13:24, April 27, 2010 (UTC)

Article for Review:[])‎‎
Please review the article at http://psychology.wikia.com/wiki/John_Bradshaw,_Sr._%28TV_Host,_Author,_Workshop_Leader,_Educator%29 It seems to be an advertisement and primarily a self-promotional or "fluff" piece that is not consistent with the purposes of this Wiki. I recommend it be considered and reviewed for removal.  Dr. Becker-Weidman  Talk 09:03, May 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Art Articles like this pose a problem for us as but there are a number of Category:Populizers of psychology who are prominent enough that I think it is right to include an account of their work where they have academic qualifications and have operated with some publically recognised expertise in the application of an aspect of our science. So I have edited it and tried to make it more factual account. I am happy for others to argue for its exclusion at a later date. Dr Joe Kiff 23:04, May 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * You make a good point here and your edits are fine. I am glad we had a chance to discuss this publicly and reach an consensus. regards, Art  Dr. Becker-Weidman  Talk 00:12, May 16, 2010 (UTC)

Question about disclaimer
Do you think we need this? http://psychology.wikia.com/wiki/Template:Clinical_disclaimer art  Dr. Becker-Weidman  Talk 11:48, June 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Art. Yes I think the disclaimer is an important legal piece of text ensuring that people understand that they need to take the information on the site in context and are responsible for ensuring that they use it at their own risk, preferable after corroborating the knowledge with trained personnel if necessary. What do you think? Dr Joe Kiff 18:30, June 1, 2010 (UTC)