Talk:Self-enhancement

Hi. I have updated the content on the self-enhancement page. I have tried to include all the material that was already there but have used more sections and tried to add to the content significantly. Hope everyone approves! Amy Cridge 21:15, 10 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amy Cridge (talk • contribs)
 * Wow, I'm really impressed at the enormous volume of material, including images and tables, that you've added. Basing it on more than 170 academic references, as you've done, is also very impressive. I think you've taken a major step towards making this a highly rated article. I haven't the chance right now to do a thorough review, but in improving it further I think you need to concentrate on keeping an encyclopedic tone to keep in line with Wikipedia's style:

I know these might seem arbitrary, but they are requirements of style here on wikipedia. Well done once again. MartinPoulter (talk) 18:34, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't use "you". E.g. rephrase "whilst you may not gain outright from self-protection, you do not incur the negativity either"
 * Don't use questions in the text, e.g. "However is this motive always a practical one?" Make a statement instead of a question.
 * Make sure you explain technical terms when they first occur, e.g. Diagnosticity. Remember that people will be reading this article who read English, but don't know these technical terms.
 * You don't need "Self-enhancement" in the headings: it's already implicit. You can just have "Outcomes" as a heading for example, and it's clear to the reader that this means "Outcomes of self-enhancement."
 * Hi, I have made several changes in accordance with some of the comments you provided above, thanks for those! Amy Cridge 15:31, 14 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amy Cridge (talk • contribs)

Heine vs. Sedikides Debate
I don't think the timeline belongs in this article. It's a shame, since obviously a lot of work has been put into it. However, the article needs to focus on explaining self-enhancement using research, not explaining the research itself in terms of details like its publication dates. Psychology isn't about psychologists. I hope the timeline can be used in some other article, maybe a sub-article on cultural differences in self image. I'm moving the timeline out of the article and preserving it here:

"In the past decade each author has published in response to each others findings, as listed below."

MartinPoulter (talk) 10:05, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Self-enhancing triad
I question the need for so much material in this article on the "self-enhancing triad" of positive illusions. They need to be mentioned, but I think there can be less detail. The positive illusions have multiple explanations, not just in terms of self-enhancement, and we already have adequate articles on them. I note that this article was improved as part of an educational assignment, and that the course included a lot about the self-enhancing triad. That gives an incentive for a student to include it, even though it may not be central to understanding what the self-enhancement motive is. If I see more about positive illusions in the sources that specifically explain self-enhancement, then I'll change my mind. MartinPoulter (talk) 11:00, 19 April 2011 (UTC)