Talk:Filipino psychology

Wikipedia vs WikiPilipinas
Dudes, this article is better suited for WikiPilipinas. TheTechieGeek63 (talk) 13:19, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Filipino traits

 * Bahalana
 * Filipino time
 * Hospitality
 * Penitencia
 * Matriarichal


 * Unfortunately, this article is not a mere listing of Filipino traits. The traits that you saw here are part of a psychometric study by Virgilio Enriquez, Annadaisy Carlota, and Angeles Guanzon that determined their influence on Filipino daily living. -- User:Matthewprc

Filipino superstitions
I would like to move Philippine psychology to Filipino superstitions--Jondel 02:33, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

filipino values
characteristics 1.palabra de honor-a person with one word 2.hospitality-warm acceptance to our visitors 3.crab mentality-pushing each other way down —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.84.172.170 (talk) 10:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

"actually" => "etymologically"?
5 or 6 words are explained as "actually" meaning something different from their simple translation. Would it be more precise to say in such cases that "the word A, usually translated as B, is etymologically related to the concept C"? Otherwise you open a philosophical can of worms about meaning, translation, etc. Wegesrand (talk) 12:28, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Conformity and religion

 *  Filipinos value conformity because unlike non-Asian countries, its culture is predominantly Christian

This sentence doesn't make any sense. Should it be deleted? Viriditas (talk) 02:52, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Evaluation of this article
Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference?

When examining the article, there was an abundant amount of information present; however, in terms of citing every fact directly throughout the sections, there wasn't a reference superscripted within the text. There was however a list of references as a footnote, as needed.

Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

The article is constructed in a neutral setting. It states facts and contains no bias. There was no sign of any kind of opinion throughout the article. The article basically gives straightforward definitions and explanations of certain Filipino psychological constructs and the history behind them. Miaelmore (talk) 16:24, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

To be honest, many details in the article are irrelevant (and even misleading) to Filipino Psychology. There are some sections that are even just plain wrong. Psycho-medical section, for example, states that: "Filipino psychomedicine, or sikomedikal na sikolohiya in Filipino, is the application of basic psychology to native healing practices loosely considered as 'medicine'.". Psychomedicine is by no means an application of psychology. Currently trying to overhaul the article. I already edited the entire history section since it was just a list of dates, many of which are irrelevant to the actual movement that is Filipino Psychology. (User:UninnocentBystander) 09:07, 25 October 2018

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Filipino psychology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090621002336/http://journaloffilipinostudies.csueastbay.edu/html/washington.html to http://journaloffilipinostudies.csueastbay.edu/html/washington.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:58, 27 December 2017 (UTC)