Talk:Psychology of self

Untitled
The earliest formulation of the self in modern psychology from the distinction between the self as I, the subjective knower, and the self as Me, the object that is known. this sentence makes no sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.14.157.109 (talk) 21:12, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree --Vblanton (talk) 21:21, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Self (philosophy and psychology)
The self (philosophy) article is currently an uninformative stub. If it were to be fleshed out it would largley duplicate this article ("self (psychology)") as the two are derived from each other (or so it seems to me at this point). Thus I propose merging both articles either under the title "Self (philosophy and psychology)" or "Self" (with the disambiguation page being "self (disambiguation)". Hyacinth 20:19, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I have now also discovered Self-concept. Hyacinth 07:01, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * The Other, as in self/other, used to redirect to Subject-object problem. Hyacinth 07:32, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Jungian Self
I was linked to the Self (psychology) article from the Archetype article dealing with Jung's theory. This article doesn't seem to have a lot to say about Jung's use of the word "Self" as an archetype. Unfortunately I am a stranger to the subject. Does the article explain Jung's "self" at all? If it does, should this be labeled? Or does a Jung section need to be added? --Instant Classic 23:03, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hyphenated vs. non-hyphenated self terminology
In WP there appears to be a mixture of hyphenated and non-hyphenated 'self' terms. It could take a lot to track them all through; in the short-term it might be best for those working on this page to help ensure there are redirects e.g., self concept -> self-concept and vice-versa, etc. Jtneill - Talk 07:36, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Foucault - needs work
Commenting this out for now; needs to be written/explained more clearly: The quantifying and classifying process is referred to by Michel Foucault (1975, 1977) as being the issue of &: when the masses are classified they can be exploited as individuals and it is individuality that allows this to occur. Jtneill - Talk 08:09, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Postmodern self (or selves rather)
Where does this fit? What I mean, simply put, there has been a push among postmodernists (e.g., Kenneth Gergen) within the area of psychology suggesting the notion of humans having a healthy multitude of selves which contextually change, or work together, everyday. Switching roles; for example; the nurturer to sex object. The proponents maintain that the 'different selves' relate to different aspects of the multifaceted human life. Once again... Where does this fit? Or has it already been discussed elsewhere?

No-self
I think, we should include a brief overview of the buddhist concept: No-self. - Nearfar 16:02, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Self (Psychology)?
It doesn't seem like anyone has been talking about this page for awhile. I'm pretty new to contributing to Wikipedia, so please feel free to push me in the right direction if I do or say something wrong. The Self is an ENORMOUS topic in psychology (both personality and social psychology) and this page needs a major overhaul to reflect that importance. First off, the self in psychology should be distinct from that in philosophy. While there are some intersections (e.g. James, Freud), each discipline has such a thorough treatment of the topic that it would be impractical to fit all of that content into one article. Second, I think this article would benefit from a historical overview of the term in psychology, which has gone through multiple interpretations throughout the decades. A historical overview might begin with William James' (1900) distinction between the I and the Me, and end with the distinction that personality vs social psychologists currently place on the term. Thirdly, Kohut's formulation of selves, while interesting, are by no means the crux of psychological research and theory on the self. At the most, two or three sentences on his contributions are merited. Additionally, the second section of the article is more or less either not psychology or not about the self. It should be entirely stricken from the article. Fourth, I would suggest merging the self-concept article with this one. This is more a suggestion based on my own experience with the construct, though I can understand how others might wish to keep the concepts distinct. I make the suggestion because the more broad topic of "the self" (in social psychology) encompasses other constructs like self-concept, self-image, multiple selves, etc. Anyhow, I'm just worried about this page because it is the first site to show up when one google's "the self," and the information provided in this article is by no means representative of how the self is studied in psychology. It requires more than a couple revisions, in my opinion. I'm just hesitant to go about doing a major deletion spree before consulting hopefully more experience wikipedians.Chrono.Psych (talk) 03:25, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Nikolas Rose hates freedom?
The summary of Nikolas Rose says: "Rose believes that freedom assists governments and exploitation."

I've never read Rose, but this sounds wrong. --zenohockey (talk) 23:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Hope to have clarified this somewhat now Jacobisq (talk) 10:55, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Winnicott
Have added somwhat from fr wiki here Jacobisq (talk) 10:55, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

The main parts of the self
I am currently modifying articles in my Senior Psychology lab. I believe that the self should be more fleshed out and the main parts of the self should be included. Self-knowledge, interpersonal self, and agent self should be described as they are significant features and areas of study of the self. Bmcomer (talk) 15:08, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I have been extensively working on this article modification. My main contributions have been with adding in more information and expanding on the notion of the self. I have gone in depth on the parts of the self and different facets, in which self-knowledge, interpersonal self, and the agent self are covered and integrated into the concept of the self. My article will have been reviewed by three other students in the course, as well as the professor and TA before final modification is posted.Bmcomer (talk) 19:26, 10 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Bmcomer. Please don’t forget to keep  Lova Falk  ’s comments in mind. An undergraduate text book may not be written at an appropriate level and may therefore not be an appropriate source. Also, I just popped over to your sandbox and had a look at your draft. I do have a couple of concerns. One is related to the reliance on a single citation in your draft. Is this an area you have had the opportunity to work on yet? I of course understand that it is a work in progress.


 * Finally, I would suggest that when you do start working on the article proper that you do so in sections. That is, you don’t perform your changes all in one hit. This will allow other editors to be selective if they have some hesitations about some of your contributions. In other words, it will help them avoid throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Cheers Andrew (talk) 04:10, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I have finally uploaded the modified material to this article. I have added in 6 more resources and more information on Berne's theory, Jungian understandings, memory, and the parts of the self regarded in social psychology. Most of the information I added in was describing the different aspects that the parts of the self consist of. Bmcomer (talk) 13:40, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

What shapes the self
This addition would integrate ideas already stated in the section of social psychology, however it dives into the notion of how our self is shaped through culture and our own individuality. This section also should involve the looking-glass self, introspection, and social comparisons. Bmcomer (talk) 15:07, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Welcome! Please remember that Wikipedia is not an academic paper or essay! Wikipedia articles should not be based on WP:primary sources, but on reliable, published secondary sources (for instance, journal reviews and professional or advanced academic textbooks) and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources (such as undergraduate textbooks). WP:MEDRS describes how to identify reliable sources for medical information, which is a good guideline for many psychology articles as well. With friendly regards,  Lova Falk     talk   16:39, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Psychology of Financial Planning II
— Assignment last updated by Wfmira (talk) 16:23, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Reconstruction
After reading the article, I think it would be pertinent to not only restructure certain areas but also updating simple grammar matters within the article. One main point I saw was that many of the article sections are not similar in length or content. They serve as to educate different aspects of Psychologists takes on the self. Also, I noticed that certain sections could be moved for cohesion. For example, the final paragraph of the article may work better at the beginning.

In reference to grammatical changes, I have noticed some spelling or continuity breaks in the writing. A big agreement that should be made is if self in this sense is capitalized, it can confuse readers when sometimes the self is capitalized but other times it is not. KaigedWolf (talk) 18:31, 18 September 2023 (UTC)


 * In addition to my previous content, I feel that some sections include many research examples and such on the concepts related to the psychology of self. I think it may be better to revise this to be more concise and brief and allow the user to look into those concepts through other searches.
 * Essentially saying that the psychology of self page should discuss psychology of self and not an in depth view of different concept and its history. KaigedWolf (talk) 16:30, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

As a final note, after looking at the edits and changes, there is a need for Freud and Carl Rogers to be researched and included in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KaigedWolf (talk • contribs) 02:56, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Critique Section
I did remove the critique section because the information currently in it was not concise or offering any great deal. Before it is added, there would need to be research into the literature for the critiques of the theories and ideas posted. KaigedWolf (talk) 16:45, 29 September 2023 (UTC)