***I'll usually respond to people on which ever talk page started the conversation.***
Hi there JoeSmack. Now you are just the kind of person we neeed here, one that knows the ropes. I'll therefore dispense with the usual introduction pack of hints and tips.
You will find us a very active band of contributors, we've put up over 10,000 pages in the last 5 months. While a lot of this, as you will have seen, is from Wikipedia initially, our goal know is to uplift it to a proper academic standard.
We have a lot of creative ideas for the way forward and you are most welcome to carry us forward further still. There is a lot of growth in the idea of extending the encyclopedia format into a total information management tool for a domain of knowledge.
Dont hesitate to communicate with me or the other contributors through our talk pagesLifeartist 17:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Good stuff on your user pagesEdit
I learnt a few tips and tricks there. It had me going on a wild import spin collecting all the new MBTI material. I'm INFP for the record - a wiki like this satisfies all my idealistic tendencies!!!Lifeartist 22:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
- That site is one of my favourites. I've been tagging along behind you filling in some of the links in your articles just to make you feel welcome. Im of to bed now, as its midnight here. Just love the thought of others working away on the wiki all around the world as we sleep!!Glad you are settling inLifeartist 23:00, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
MBTI user boxesEdit
Hey JoeSmack I regard these boxes as a real treat! Many thanks. It will be fascinating to see how they get used. I think they are a good way to get a feel of people over the internet.Lifeartist 06:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- Hey Joe, I think the Userboxes are great too. Thanks. I'm going to add some links on your userpage to find them all easily, as I can't remember all of the types of the top of my head myself. I'm an ENFJ by the way Mostly Zen 22:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- Neato. Thanks MZ. :) JoeSmack 03:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Some papers you might likeEdit
Hi JoeSmack. This is Jaywin. I haven't had the chance to say "Welcome" yet...so "Welcome to the Psychology Wiki!" I'm one of the administrators, so if you have any questions, feel free to ask. I noticed from your user page that you have an interest in Kohlberg. Perhaps you might be interested in the two papers here. Both have links to the full texts, if you want to check them out. Jaywin 01:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- I just read Kreb's evolutionary reconceptualizing. Very interesting stuff. Definitely groks a lot of Kohlberg's work. A biological perspective is truly a fascinating lens to view morality. Very smart stuff. Very.
- It's strange how the arguement for the evolution of morality sounds similar to that of spoken language (why didn't we all just use sign language and not make a noise to prey?).
- A few things though I feel I should mention. I read the entire thing waiting for one word to appear: empathy. It didn't, which made me sad cause I really wanted to hear about it from an evolutionary viewpoint, especially in regards to morality. Empathy develops at a very young age, of months and not years (read Martin Hoffman works for this kind of research); empathy's relation and development to morality is juxtapose and ultimately zygotic. People always misconstrue Kohlberg's work to be affectless and devoid of feeling, but it's there. Kohlberg was more worried about form and structure than to bring in something with function. If you don't believe me, check out the Kohlberg/Milgram research. Kohlberg found that one of the *very* few predictors of disobeying the Milgram Study was being at stage 6. It was something like 75% as compared to the 13% of lower stages. A stage 5 would say he 'agreed to do it' via social contract, a stage 4 would have to obey the rules (someone else can deal with the outcome), stage 3's would want to meet the experimenter's expections, etc. Stage 6 would say 'I wouldn't want me or anyone to go through that.' I have that study somewheres, Milgram and Kohlberg were at Yale and Harvard respectively at similar times, and thus were close enough to tinker with each others business ;)
- The comment that the golden rule doesn't exist in nature is true, but only in a certain sense. Take for instance the study (can't remember who off the top of my head) that observed cats growing up and mice. There were three cohorts: cats raised with no parents, cats raised with parents who killed mice, and cats that were raised with parents who didn't kill mice. The cats with no parents killed rats instinctually. The cats who had mouse-killing parents killed a larger amount than even their instictual brethren. The cats who had parents who didn't kill mice had to lowest incidence of mouse killing of all three by far. You might heir on the side of the instinct cohort for evolution, but nature, even encompassing minor social structures, should get some credit where credit is due. And, heres were I lean more towards social-learning theory, credit to society where credit is due. Civilization and Its Discontents will outline this plenty with the move from Id following to Superego following (psychoanalysts would call this our morality) following, and the detrements/advantages thereof. I was delighted to see Freud up in there.
- Finally, I was sad to hear a sort of 'giving up' on stages 5 and 6 for any kind of biological basis. Mechanisms for 1-4 were found, but why would stage 5 and 6 exist (and they do) if they weren't biologically favored. A 'modicrum' of evolutionary prosperity doesn't seem like a very empirical or sound explaination; for instance stage 5 is ostensively embodied by democratic government, e.g. the United Stages of America. Look at Switzerland, they use pure democracy (en.wiki), a stage 6 embodiment! Thats a whole country! And even as this scholarly ananlysis has put forth, people's moral actions tend to develop a little behind their moral judgments, and that people do not operate at their highest stage at all times (phew, how tiring would that be?), stage 5 of 6 are demostrateable, even if it isn't as common in real-life moral dilemmas (enter Carol Gilligan). And, a little back to empathy here, remember the Kohlberg work in Milgram's backyard: empathy, morality and real-life (unethical as it may be) demonstrations.
- But anyways, very good stuff. I'm glad I read it. I'll be getting to that other paper sometime soon methinks. :) JoeSmack 03:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
On your response to KrebEdit
Glad you liked the paper, (for the most part, it sounds!). I found this paper online dealing with empathy. I haven't read it, but you may find it interesting: Empathy: Its ultimate and proximate bases. It does seem strange, though, that empathy would not be mentioned. It would seem to me that the evolution of the capacity for empathy would be important for us highly social Homo sapiens!
I wonder how much game theory could show us about stages 5 and 6? Hmmmmm....
A caveat: there's no monolithic view in evolutionary psychology at the moment, so there could very well be many evolutionary psychologists who find similar points of contention that you have. Furthermore, there are other evolutionary approaches on human behavior besides evolutionary psychology. Check out some of the papers listed at the bottom of evolutionary developmental psychology and dual inheritance theory. Both perspectives will also often times integrate "social learning" within an evolutionary framework. As a matter of fact, dual inheritance theory could be thought of as a mix of evolutionary theory, cultural theory, and learning theory.
In my own opinion, evolution and social learning do not have to be dichotomized or incompatible. For a species as highly social as ours, the capacity for social learning most certainly reflects a set of adaptive traits, (though the actual content of what is learned would be culturally transmitted). Many of our cognitive and social biases probably have adaptive functions. Dual inheritance theorists, for example, often speak of "conformist biases" in social learning. Having a bias to learn something the way it is generally done, even if the information is somewhat inaccurate, could still be less costly than individually learning something accurately from scratch.
I've also made a page called list of publications on evolution and human behavior. If dual inheritance theory sounds interesting, you might like some papers from Boyd, Richerson, and/or McElreath. (Links available on this page are in alphabetical order).
You might also like the ToK system, especially the part of the ToK System called the "Justification Hypothesis", (Freud's ideas play a role in the JH.) An article has been started by Mostly Zen. Check out the links to the paper and the website,(which has some cool power points, by the way!) The JH suggests, in part, that as human beings evolved the capacity for language and self-awareness systems, humans were faced with the unique problem of having to justify our actions and that the Ego evolved as a sort-of "justification filter." Anyways, I think you'll like the ToK. Jaywin 01:40, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Good work on the titles thingEdit
I didnt know some of them existed!! I loved reading the discussion above, this is why this wiki can really work.Lifeartist 19:23, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
I use wanted pagesEdit
10th July UpdateEdit
Heres the update I've sent out to everyone today. I have contacted Jim Wales to let him know about our project (see his talk page here: His talk page. We've also been in contact with other people at Wikia about the possibility of marketing the Psychology wiki. Its been a good day. Mostly Zen
Just to let you know that the Psychology Wiki is continuing to grow. Check out our:
- Main Page
- Community Portal
- Beginners Guide to Editing
- Featured Article: Recovery from Acquired Brain Injury
- Soon to be featured article: Clinical depression
- User Experiences Page
Hope you can help us building the community. Otherwise, please let other people know about us as much as you can, or log in and vote for us to be a featured Wikia here: Vote
Mostly Zen 22:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
I hope things are going well with you. I'm just here to tell you about our new Category system, which we are in the long (and slow) process of sorting out. Have a look at these 2 forums:
One we have sorted out how to use the categories properly, we will copy the forum discussions to their own pages on the Psychology Wiki, a page for the Category Tree and a page on How to use Categories.
At the moment, its such a big task, that it deserves its own forum to discuss it. Please help in any way you can, as your contributions will help our goal of unifying psychology knowledge to succeed. Mostly Zen (talk) 21:18, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
PS: I had another Idea of something you could do. There are a lot of userboxes on Wikipedia, for things Like: This user is a psychologist.. this user has a BSc... this user has a PhD in Psychology etc... Do you think you could copy them over to here like you did with the MBTI boxes? That'd be fantastic if you could, as it would be very useful to know what level of expertise people can contribute with, though all levels are valuable.
Hope you are ok