Talk:Opponent-process theory

[untitled]
there are two opponent process theries given by two different psychologists herring has given opponent process theaory related to color vision and solomon has given the theory related to oppnent process in emotion kindly verify the content thank you ---shrishail

criticism?
Seems a bit simplistic, this theory, and the opposite emotions vary depending on the situation. Aren't there any critics? 84.197.190.98 (talk) 20:06, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Colleague in LEDE can't be so.
Look at their dates, Karl Ewald Konstantin Hering (August 5, 1834 – January 26, 1918) Richard Lester Solomon (October 2, 1918 - October 12, 1995) They were not colleagues as they not even alive at the same time. I don't know the best word here. Fromthehill (talk) 06:07, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You are quite right, and I fixed it.  Lova Falk     talk   14:03, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

✅

Some confusion in the article: Opponent process theory.
The article starts off, without preamble, with a section describing a theory of visual (colour) perception already desribed in a separate WP article titled Opponent Process. This article's header even 'disambiguates' the two and points to the second article, and vice verca.

It then goes on to a second section discussing a behavioural theory developed by Solomon, described in the WP biographical article on him as an "opponent-process theory of emotion."

Then at the end of the second section, it seems to attempt an undeclared synthesis of these two theories into the later works of Hurvich & Jameson, and Ronald C. Blue & Wanda E. Blue; the description of which reads (to me at least) to be a neurological theory that explains the findings/contentions of the previous two bodies of work (on vision and behaviour.) A distinction between the work of these two partnerships is not made clear.

Now, my suggestions ...

1.) The easy bit: at very least a new section should be created at the introduction of Hurvich & Jameson (usw) as this is a whole new ... well, section.

2.) The hard bit: The two sections, up to the introduction of Hurvich etc., do not seem to me to warrant the level of discussion that they are given here. I would contend that they are conceptually different and ante-cedent to the subject "Opponent-Proccess Theory". Being both precursor and examples of the latter work (Hurvich etc) by all means they can, perhaps even should, be mentioned. But the article is, I think, about the latter work, (that which I'm suggesting be at least a new, third, section).

I could do the 'create a new section' bit, but I don't want to; because I think the whole article needs major re-working to re-focus it on the last section, and I'm going to throw that open for discussion here.

In summary, my argument is that article sets out to discuss the "Opponent Process Theory", (note the capitals!), and spends most of it's time on some opponent-process theories. That's where I think it lost its way.

I hope this reasonably coherent. If I haven't explained it well enough let me know.

Over to you.

Wayne aus (talk) 14:57, 20 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Very good analysis. I agree with everything you say. However, I cannot do the job either - I don't know the first thing about opponent-process theory or theories.  Lova Falk     talk   13:23, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Removed Copy-Edit Tag - Added Tags
I have copy-edited the article, and have removed the copy-edit tag, but the article is confusing, as noted by previous comments, and the lead is confusing. I can do many kinds of editing, but, in this context, to paraphrase Bones on Star Trek, "Dammit, Jim! I'm a copy-editor, not a psychologist!" Robert McClenon (talk) 02:25, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Factually incorrect and confused article
This is a factually incorrect article which makes a big mistake - it is an article about a psychological theory based on a well known and well-validated physiological theory. It confuses and incorrectly links this psychological theory to opponent colour theory and gives the impression that Ewald Herring proposed the psychological theory when he did nothing of the sort. In fact opponent colour theory is well described on it's own page 'Opponent process'- it has nothing to do with psychology. The two have no real connection, and leads to major issues in this article. For example, Ewald Herring was stated to be a psychologist which is incorrect(he was a physiologist - I have corrected this).

Merge from A-process
In order for a reader to understand what the A-process is, the basics of opponent-process theory need to be explained (as demonstrated by the current article). Further, for a complete description of the theory, a description of the processes is useful. Therefore, each article requires content from the other in order to be a reasonable summary. So, for the reasons of overlap and required context, I propose that the sub-concept of A-process be merged into this article, Opponent-process theory. And now, for the housekeeping. I'll go alert A-process (and opponent process, because of the close relationship), and do the tagging. And I'm pinging the creators of the two articles - and  - and some people that have edited the article over a longer period of time -  and. --Xurizuri (talk) 07:32, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I agree and support this. Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 01:47, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Removal of invented info/vandalism
I've removed the sentence ""American psychologist Benjamin Avendano contributed to this model, by adding a 2 factor model" from the lead, added in April 2016 by user 186.136.93.118 . I can find no reference to this person/research in any academic/scientific database (pubmed, Semantic Scholar, Google Books, etc etc) and, given this user's previous contributions, which include more than one instance of WP:VANDALISM, (examples: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sumerian_religion&diff=prev&oldid=773122576, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Coca&diff=prev&oldid=763463139, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=World_War_II_by_country&diff=prev&oldid=708106599) I think it's reasonable to conclude that this info is simply invented nonsense. It's disappointing that it survived on Wikipedia for six years and has been recycled into a number of other websites. 45154james (talk) 13:35, 18 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Just to follow-up, I now see (from the blanked Talk page), that this IP address previously released multiple warnings for vandalism and/or unconstructive edits . 45154james (talk) 13:52, 18 March 2023 (UTC)