Talk:Group dynamics/Archive 1

Untitled
This passage:

Most published and experienced work in group dynamics is very biased because of the YAVIS phenomena (Young Attractive Verbal Intelligent Successful). Working with "inscrutible" persons has been very difficlut because non-YAVIS methods are still being developed. The Big Brother popular television series, with several high-definition audiovisual recordings of a group is still evolving as a research tool that shows the failings of all prior research tools.

Was removed by an anonymous editor as nonsense. While unsourced, it is certainly not nonsense. Fred Bauder 19:14, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The way it is written would be almost impossible to defend: "Most published and experienced work in group dynamics is very biased..."  YAVIS is certainly a term used in psychotherapy.  I haven't come across any studies of its applicability to group dynamics.  I didn't remove the statement, but I didn't disagree with its removal.  It would need a fair amount of work.  Perhaps someone could begin by supplying some citations. Sunray 20:33, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Merge
Proposal: "Group process" be merged into this article.

Rationale: Both articles are slim and need updated citations. The two together, with some updating, might make a reasonable article. Of the two terms, "Group dynamics" is the more common (2M+ hits on Google for "Group dynamics" vs. 1M for "Group process"). While group dynamics and group process are similar, both can be distinguished from the WP article on Group development, which is written from a more theoretical and "macro" viewpoint. There would, nevertheless need to be some rationalizing of content between the articles. Please indicate your support or opposition to this proposal below by 12:00 p.m. (UTC), October 4. Sunray (talk) 21:50, 27 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge completed. Sunray (talk) 06:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Yet another merge proposal
 Proposal  ; rescuer, bystander, perpetrator  be merged into this article.

rationale same ilk of human manipulation...group theory, dynamics..Heroicimaginationproject.org — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.219.144.53 (talk) 23:52, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose. That article doesn't appear to exist, so the merge would be quite a challenge. Cheers Andrew (talk) 05:04, 7 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Did you mean rescuer, bystander effect, and suspect? In which case these phenomena are sufficiently distinct that they require separate articles. --Andrewaskew (talk) 08:38, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Another merger proposal
Proposal: group behaviour be merged into this article. Rationale: Hi all, I believe that there is no meaningful distinction between the topics of "group dynamics" and "group behaviour". I believe a cursory look at the respective contents tables for the two articles is a pretty clear indication of this. I suggest a merge (although I have no real preference for which title is retained). What do others think? Cheers Andrew (talk) 05:16, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. They are basically about the same subject. Seems to be an awful lot of work though, but if you feel like it... Personally I prefer the name group dynamics but I'm fine with group behavior as well.  Lova Falk     talk   19:59, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

❌Due to a prolonged stale.Forbidden User (talk) 08:06, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Forbidden User. I reinstated the merge proposal. I do plan on doing this. Are you happy to give me until the end of the month? Cheers Andrew (talk) 08:14, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok, I bet it's a hard work. Happy you're still here.Forbidden User (talk) 08:16, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi all. Just quick note on the way that I performed the merge of the content from Group behaviour. Other editors may notice that while predictably none of the redundant content came across, there was also a lot of other content that didn’t make the cut. My rationale for this is that much of the content from the Group Behavior article I felt was either off topic or of poor quality. In terms of the latter, much of it was uncited and in my view incorrect, or alternatively was pitched at a level too superficial for Wikipedia. I am not wedded to these choices though. If someone thinks that there is content that should have been brought across that was not, then by all means be bold and add it into the article or raise it in the talk page for discussion. Cheers Andrew (talk) 11:04, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

A proposal to reduce bias
last part of proposal:

Section Interdependance: change this : that racial and ethnic minority groups are equal to Whites and, similarly, should be integrated into schools to : that racial and ethnic minority groups are equal to racial and ethnic majority groups and, similarly, should be treated as part of society reason : the notion that minority groups should be integrated into schools, is condescending and victimizes them.

etc. call it a win for pseudoscience. Strikefinger (talk) 21:12, 1 August 2020 (UTC)


 * this concerns Neil S Walker
 * I got demotivated in trying to uncover which of my edits were most important; if you want to resolve it look to changes preceding 21:12 1 August 2020 (UTC) Strikefinger (talk) 21:40, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Koreanblackmamba.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:48, 16 January 2022 (UTC)