Ad blocker interference detected!
Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers
Wikia is not accessible if you’ve made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.
Shouldn't comparative psychology be considered a sub-discipline of biological psychology? By comparing humans with other animals, that implies (at least in many cases) commonality due to a phylogenic relationship of some sort, (e.g. humans compared to chimps who share a common ancestor from about 7 million years ago). Jason Bessey - Jaywin (talk) 12:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I think in terms of the categories that this makes sense. In terms of the textbook arrangement I think we should still have seperate sections in order to improve the layout.Dr Joe Kiff - User:Lifeartist (talk) 14:57, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
- O.K. But if we change the categories, should we take it out of the main section of the browsebar and put it in the sub-section of the BioPsy browsebar? I ask this because presently the academic psychology subjects in the browsebar parallel the academic psychology category structure. Jason Bessey - Jaywin (talk) 21:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I dont think it particularly matters as long as people find it easily. When the PsychInfo categories were drawn up perhaps rat work and so on was more prominant than it is now. It goes back to what I said about us redrawing the conceptual map of the science. Though on that basis perhaps genetics should have a section on its own as I think it is there and in neuroscience that progress will be made over the next 10-15 years!.But they are both properly included in the Biological.
My concern is more one of clarity. There are a number of categories one could collapse, to some degree these distinctions are artificial. If we have too much coming off the biological page it makes the site seem a bit lop sided.
- I agree that we (1) want to make things easy to find, and (2) want to have clarity. It doesn't help when there seems to be a bit of "fuzziness" to the field of biological psychology in general, in terms of how to break it down into subcategories.
- Some of the subcategories in the BioPsy template seem like sub categories of other sub categories, (e.g., neuroanatomy & neurochemistry seem like they could be subcategories of neuroscience, which in turn looks like it would be a subcategory of physiological psychology). Categorizing them like this could help alleviate the appearance of "biological-lopsidedness" (which I agree that we would want to avoid). But it's a tough call.
- Check out this interesting diagram about the four areas of biology. Maybe this could help shed some light. Jason Bessey - Jaywin (talk) 05:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)