Talk:Prenatal and perinatal psychology

B class low importance article
"Article is largely uncited, has not applied for GA class, assessed at B class" I agree. I am going to get to this one in July '07 and fix the citation problems plus raise it's importance. Help always appreciated.--Ziji 23:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * This article now has an amazing number of references -- in fact, it's about 50% references on my computer screen. I'd like to see a little more specific content to expand the text now. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:34, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Psychoneuroendocrinology
This is a useful area to establish scientific credentials for the field. I have tapped a number of useful references. I have also begun a Frank Lake article - any additions gratefully recvieved, including critique of his maternal-fetal distress syndrome.--  Ziji    (talk)   13:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Interdisciplinary field
I have included a number of references to establish the bona fides of prenatal and perinatal psychology as an interdisciplinary field, including hard sciences such as neurobiology. This has changed the tone of the intro quite a bit and it could disturb old hands who have thought of the field more in the terms of the later discussion in the article, where my affections are as well - you may notice I have started the article on Frank Lake to honor a leader in the field as significant to me as Grof and Rank - fortunately recognised as such or I would be in breach of NPOV. My reason for changing this to the extent that I have is to get the article up to an encyclopedic standard, where it will have a place in Psychology (dominated as parts of it are by cogntive science) that has yet to register that the fetus has both temperament, memory and perception, which lay the foundation for learning, personality and character formation. Trauma to the fetus and/or mother have measurable and enduring hormonal and structural effects, which set patterns of responding and learning throughout life. Third generation descendants of holocaust survivors are a good example of the grandmother effect in these enduring patterns of response. They generally have higher cortisol levels than matched groups of non descendants of holocaust survivors. These also are legitimate areas for inclusion in this article, and I invite editors with expertise in that and related areas to contribute to this article. My other reason for making these changes is a longer term goal of getting Body psychotherapy (which inlcudes breath work for instance) and Somatic Psychology if merged, up to the same level of intrinsic authority, but it needs prenatal and perinatal psychology to support it--  Ziji    (talk)   23:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe
Maybe somebody wants to insert some of the knowledge presented here.
 * INTRODUCTION TO PRENATAL PSYCHOLOGY
 * Austerlitz -- 88.75.203.240 (talk) 08:44, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

So what is birth trauma?
Simply put, I searched for "Birth Trauma" in wikipedia and was directed to this article which does not explain what it is. Either remove the redirect or actually explain the concept here, kthxbye. :)Viciouspiggy (talk) 16:15, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Huge Pruning
I am noting a HUGE pruning done recently on this article that strangely didn't merit any comment on the talk page apparently by the person who did it. So that is now noted. Also note that this article has been brought to attention of the Fringe Theories review board, for what that's worth, and this appears to be the source of the huge pruning and nomination for deletion. So if this is on anyone's watchlist and you care about this article, take note that it's being eyed in this way by this group. SageRad (talk) 12:24, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

And indeed so should the fringe therapies group be doing that! I have inserted one sentence to indicate the connection of this material with "alternative" beliefs. The combination of good evidence for prenatal learning, etc., and fantasy or LSD-derived material like the ideas of Grof and deMause is confusing to naive readers and avoids any real discussion of what the two things have to do with each other. It's common for pseudoscientific arguments to skip any effort to make logical connections between scientifically-studied material and unrelated claims-- not surprising, as there are no such connections. Actually, I would not argue for deletion, but simply for a clear differentiation between fact and fantasy. I have provided a reference that helps with that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.235.147.144 (talk) 14:22, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Removed from lead
I just removed this material from the lead:

Prenatal psychology can be seen as a part of developmental psychology, although historically it was developed in the heterogenous field of psychoanalysis. Its scope is the description and explanation of experience and behaviour of the individual before birth. In so far as the actual birth process is involved one can consider this perinatal psychology. Pre- and perinatal aspects are often discussed together.

I took it out for a few reasons... This sentence contradicts itself. "Prenatal psychology can be seen as a part of developmental psychology, although historically it was developed in the heterogenous field of psychoanalysis." The aspects of prenatal psychology that are within the scope of developmental psychology were not originally developed by the field of psychoanalysis. There are no independent reliable sources that support that. I'm still not sure which perspective this article is supposed to be about, so I don't know what to do with it yet. The next sentence was articulated more concisely in the next paragraph that's still in the article, so I took it out because it was redundant. —PermStrump ( talk )  13:09, 8 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I see you've reverted me already. These are my reasons. What source are you basing his first sentence off of? —PermStrump  ( talk )  13:10, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Mr. Bobby had left the following reply on my talkpage instead of here, but I replied that I'm moving the conversation back here so as not to split the conversion: —PermStrump  ( talk )  13:23, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * there is nothing contradictive. the first assumptions concenrning prenatal mental life stem from rank. also others were thinking about that and had anecdotes of prenatal life. later academic psychologists and physiolgists and so on delivered empirical data.


 * so, in fact, the sentence you deleted describes the historical development perfectly right. Mr. bobby (talk) 13:17, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * What is your source for those statements? —PermStrump  ( talk )  13:24, 8 August 2016 (UTC)


 * the source is reading and thinking. rank published 1924 and made statements on the psychology of the late prenatal phase. hooker, physiologist, made experiments with fetuses in the 30ies of the 20th century. and as described in the article others made conditioning experiments (psychology). so all started with assumptions of rank and then other sciences delivered aspects of that field. all that is already sourced in the article. Mr. bobby (talk) 13:31, 8 August 2016 (UTC)