Talk:Robert Sternberg

no references
There were no references supporting any of the claims that Sternberg's ideas lack empirical support. Further the name invoked as a critic (without reference) is hardly qualified to criticize Sternberg's work.

Additional references now added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikikoo (talk • contribs) 10:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Assess (Education)
This is referenced or is referenced by impication on the Education page ... therefore mid importance (might be high?) Victuallers 13:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Where on earth does it say he's married to his third wife? If that's true it's pretty ironic for a guy who writes about love, but come on -- i can't find ANYTHING about that listed anywhere else on the internet. The only pages that talk about his wife(s) link to this page. Archtemplar 10:07, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Creatology
I've just removed the unsourced claim that "Sternberg has proposed to apply the name creatology to scientific studies of creativity." While searching for a ref, Google led to me to this page in which Sternberg, with reference to this very WP article, explicitly declaims coining the term. I don't know if this is somebody's pet theory or what, but I'm posting this in case the claim is re-added. --zenohockey 15:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Link to biography is not working. Should be http://provost.tufts.edu/1174149600661/Provost-Page-prov2w_1174149600774.html but will let someone else change --not registered as user 121.44.212.218 12:10, 8 July 2007 (UTC) This is now fixed ... curious as to why 121.44.212.218 didn't log in... Mr Stromberg?? Victuallers 17:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Sternberg.png
Image:Sternberg.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Theory of Intelligence - Practical Application
Whoever was the last contributor added "This is all a lie." without reference to the end of the Practical Application section. I'm a newbie so won't attempt to edit, but wanted to call attention to that unsubstantiated and vague remark.

G+SHancock (talk) 00:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

He was cool?¿
In bibliography, it looks funny. Someone should modify it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.224.58.91 (talk) 01:37, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Criticisms section
The criticism section written by one editor essentially seems to be WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. There seems to be no WP:RS where this is reported. Linda Gottfredson is probably not considered as one of the foremost experts in intelligence measurement. She has published the following statement about Robert Sternberg in 2005: "Critics have associated a belief in the hereditary basis of intelligence with evil intent so frequently and for so long that merely mentioning IQ is enough to trigger in many minds the words "pseudoscience", "racism", and "genocide." Even current APA president Robert Sternberg keeps the malicious association alive by regularly ridiculing and belittling empirically-minded intelligence researchers (e.g., comparing Jensen, in a book meant to honor him, to a child who would not grow up; referring to their work as "quasi-science" that has "recreated a kind of night of the living dead", and sprinkling his descriptions of it with mentions of racism, slavery, and even Soviet tyranny.""

Obviously she is not an admirer of Sternberg. If his triarchic theory of intelligence is to be evaluated, it should be done in a balanced way, instead of choosing hostile sources. The editor chose scientists who are advocates of Spearman's general intelligence g; they would obviously not welcome a theory that would invalidate this or go beyond it. Whether their reasons for rejecting Sternberg's theory are justified or not has to be referred to secondary sources. The editor did not even give the precise citations for Jensen, Deary or Gottfredson. But three closely related researchers do not constitute many and certainly do not reflect how the mainstream scientific community has accepted Sternberg's ideas. Because of the unbalanced nature of this section, it seems to be a BLP violation, since it is implying that many, possibly a majority of mainstream experts, have rejected Sternberg's scholarship as inadequate. Sternberg's theory is discussed in detail for example in the 1998 book of the eminent British psychometrician Nicholas Mackintosh IQ and Human Intelligence. He does not criticize Sternberg in this way. If criticisms are to appear in this BLP they must not be synthesised in this way. Sternberg's work must have been evaluated and discussed in many places: if a section on reception and criticism is to be included, it should properly survey all available significant commentary. For the moment, because the section is unbalanced, improperly sourced and because Gottfredson seems unduly hostile to Sternberg, I have removed this section as a BLP violation. If rewritten more carefully as a balanced and properly sourced Reception and criticism section, that of course would be fine. Mathsci (talk) 00:23, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Sternberg has been recently severely criticized over number of self-citations in his articles. This practice, deemed unethical by most journals and academic standards, led 130 academic psychologists to sign a letter to APS, asking for the APS Publication Committee to investigate and take proper action.


 * Mathsci wrote "Linda Gottfredson is probably not considered as one of the foremost experts in intelligence measurement." Actually, that's precisely what she is .  I'm mystified as to why anyone would make the weasel-worded assertion that she "is probably not considered as one of the foremost experts", unless one had positive evidence to support that claim, which they don't.  As per the properly referenced statements on her Wiki, Prof. Gottfredson "is professor emeritus of educational psychology at the University of Delaware and co-director of the Delaware-Johns Hopkins Project for the Study of Intelligence and Society. Gottfredson's work has been influential in shaping U.S. public and private policies regarding affirmative action, hiring quotas, and 'race-norming' on aptitude tests.  She is on the boards of the International Society for the Study of Individual Differences (ISSID), the International Society for Intelligence Research (ISIR), and the editorial boards of the scientific journals Intelligence, Learning and Individual Differences, and Society."  Furthermore, Prof. Gottfredson's professional awards in the field of intelligence measurement include the "George A Miller Award (for outstanding journal article across specialty areas), Society for General Psychology, American Psychological Association, 2008, and being elected a Fellow of the Association for Psychological Science, the Johns Hopkins University Society of Scholars, the American Psychological Association, and the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Furthermore, the NY Times saw fit to add, in an article about Sternberg, the following: "Perhaps Dr. Sternberg's harshest critic is Dr. Linda Gottfredson, a sociologist at the University of Delaware and the author of a critique of Dr. Sternberg's work on practical intelligence, to appear later this year in the journal Intelligence. 'The bottom line for me is that he hasn't provided any good evidence to support his claim that there is a separate practical intelligence,' Dr. Gottfredson said.  Finally, it was Prof. Gottfredson who drafted the position paper published in the Wall Street Journal, addressing Sternberg and his fellow skeptics of IQ tests in the wake of the publication of The Bell Curve, and which was "sent to 131 researchers, and signed by 52 university professors described as 'experts in intelligence and allied fields', including around one third of the editorial board of the journal Intelligence, in which it was subsequently reprinted". So, contrary to Mathsci's claim that Gottfredson is "probably not considered as one of the foremost experts in intelligence measurement", and that her criticism of Sternberg doesn't warrant a "criticism" section, she is in fact quite the expert, and eminently qualified to opine on Sternberg.  Unless anyone can convince me as to why the "criticism" section should not be restored, that's what I'll do. Bricology (talk) 08:24, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Intelligence Citations Bibliography for Articles Related to IQ Testing
Sternberg is a major author on human intelligence, and the article will be improved with more research. I have posted a bibliography of  Intelligence Citations for the use of all Wikipedians who have occasion to edit articles on human intelligence and related issues. I happen to have circulating access to a huge academic research library at a university with an active research program in those issues (and to another library that is one of the ten largest public library systems in the United States) and have been researching these issues since 1989. You are welcome to use these citations for your own research and to suggest new sources to me by comments on that page. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 21:14, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

What is automazation ?
I corrected "automazation" into "automatization" in "The Triarchic Model"... I hope that it is correct... --Jacques de Selliers (talk) 14:11, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Strange priorities in article
The level of detail and attention given to Sternberg's time as a university president seems out of balance with the relatively short notes on the rest of his career. If there are no objections, I'd like to streamline the introduction a little, and fill out more detail on Sternberg's research and academic work. I thought I'd start by bringing it up here, however, in case there is some counterargument I'm missing. Thanks! Whooper (talk) 03:51, 2 April 2014 (UTC)


 * First of all, I should mention that I moved your section of new comments here to the bottom of the talk page, which is the conventional location for a new set of comments. (By using the "new section" button on an article talk page, you can always put your fresh set of comments in the expected place where other editors will be looking for the newest comments.) There are evidently quite a few persons in Wyoming, at least, who think the most noteworthy aspect of Sternberg's career is his brief tenure as president of the University of Wyoming. On my part, I think the best way to move forward is to significantly expand this article, with more information about the rest of his career, and I should be able to add some more sources to this article later today to begin that process. If the information is sourced, it's all right to have in the article, but due weight is indeed an important concern for any Wikipedia article. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 14:41, 2 April 2014 (UTC)


 * It will help the quality of the article to find more sources for activities in Sternberg's life other than the most recent phase of his life, and I can meanwhile add even more specific references to book chapters by Sternberg in books by other authors, the better to represent his research writings over the years. Let's discuss collaboratively how to expand and improve this article. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 18:59, 2 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the pointer, and I agree on the course to take. The University of Connecticut's human intelligence site has a good overview on Sternberg, I think; at least, plenty enough to give a much fuller account of a career that appears to have been very influential in certain fields of psychology. The APA's presidential biography on Sternberg includes a few references to other pieces on Sternberg, as well. Do you want me to work on just adding sourced biographical details and wordsmithing, since you seem to be much better equipped than I am to work on the specific academic and research details? Whooper (talk) 01:28, 3 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reminder about the UConnn site, which although not exactly a Wikipedia reliable source in itself is certainly a good pointer to information that should be added to a lot of Wikipedia articles I watch, referring to the underlying reliable secondary sources. If you can help out with expansion of biographical details of Sternberg's career in general, that will be much appreciated and helpful to many readers of this article. I'll gradually slog through attributing more of his views to specific sources on human intelligence as I update many of the articles on Wikipedia about that broad topic. Thanks for joining in. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 16:22, 3 April 2014 (UTC)


 * It's my impression that criticism of Sternberg's intelligence models comes chiefly from research focused on IQ and similar numerical scales, but I may be wrong. Would you say that's accurate enough to merit some rewording of the criticism section? Currently, it seems to give the impression that criticism of Sternberg is universal and/or equally distributed among all other researchers in his field, which doesn't reflect my experience. Whooper (talk) 13:27, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Speaking of strangeness around him leaving Wyoming, I removed this unsourced editorializing: "Certainly, Sternberg's short tenure at UW was in part due to what many regard as a "good ol' boy" ethos that informs how the university is run. Change, especially instituted by outsiders who refuse to act as puppets to the board of trustees, is generally rejected". Fences  &amp;  Windows  07:14, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Robert Sternberg. 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/20070225104628/http://www.psicorip.org/IJPNew/Resumos/PerP/RIP/RIP036a0/RIP03921.pdf to http://www.psicorip.org/IJPNew/Resumos/PerP/RIP/RIP036a0/RIP03921.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121016163205/http://www.mrhinkley.com/blag/IntUnknown.pdf to http://mrhinkley.com/blag/IntUnknown.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100526094530/http://academics.tjhsst.edu/psych/oldPsych/sternberg/ to http://academics.tjhsst.edu/psych/oldPsych/sternberg/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060204205440/http://www.uwsp.edu/education/lwilson/learning/sternb1.htm to http://www.uwsp.edu/education/lwilson/learning/sternb1.htm

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) 13:29, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Sloppy editing, repetition, etc.
The third paragraph of the lede states the following: "Among his major contributions to psychology are the triarchic theory of intelligence and several influential theories related to creativity, wisdom, thinking styles, love, and hate. He is the author of over 1500 articles, book chapters, and books. A Review of General Psychology survey, published in 2002, ranked Sternberg as the 60th most cited psychologist of the 20th century.[3] Sternberg has acquired over $20 million in grants and contracts for his research and has conducted research on five continents. The central focus of his research is on intelligence, creativity, and wisdom. He has also studied close relationships, love, and hatred. He has authored or co-authored over 1,500 publications." (emphases mine) Clearly, at least one editor didn't pay attention to the fact that the information they added was already in the article. And it's a minor point, but I'm not convinced that it meets WP:N to tout someone as being "the 60th most cited psychologist". Inclusion in the top ten, perhaps. Anyway, if someone wouldn't mind deleting the repetitious claims, that would be appreciated. If no one steps up, I'll do it myself, but the results may not be as sympathetic. Bricology (talk) 08:01, 16 July 2018 (UTC)