Talk:Strengths and weaknesses (personality)

New topic
I searched Wikipedia for general information on strengths and weaknesses, but I was redirected to a topic on the Strengths and weaknesses of evolution. In my view, this was inappropriate. Therefore, I changed the redirect to a new stub topic. There are many directions in which this topic could go. Since I was thinking primarily about personal strengths and weaknesses, this is what I wrote about. Feel free to discuss and expand this topic. --Trelawnie (talk) 15:35, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Wouldn't this be better as a WP:DAB page than as an attempt to cover every conceivable 'strengths and weaknesses' dichotomy? HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:34, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


 * You're right, it doesn't make sense to cover every conceivable strength and weakness dichotomy. I changed the article to focus on personal strengths and weaknesses. --Trelawnie (talk) 19:12, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The article appears to be a combination of unsourced platitudes, leading up to a table (on personality strengths and weaknesses) as imperfectly-related to the general topic of 'strengths and weaknesses' as Strengths and weaknesses of evolution was. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hrafn (talk • contribs) 19:18, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

yaaah i think is true — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.170.84.189 (talk) 23:22, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Many issues
This page is highly inconsistent with modern personality theory. For starters, the concept of personality typing is highly disputed in the field. Thus, to base the article on this seems like a poor idea. The article also references four personality types that are not commonly used in the field. Consider a rewrite using well-researched concepts, like Big-5 personality continua of Costa & McCrae. --1000Faces (talk) 01:45, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Proposed redirect or WP:DAB
I can't think of a valid way this article can be brought up to Wikipedia standards. I'm thinking it could be a redirect to Values in Action Inventory of Strengths. That article's History section has:
 * As a relatively new field of research, positive psychology lacked a common vocabulary for discussing measurable positive traits before 2004. Traditional psychology benefited from the creation of DSM, as it provided researchers and clinicians with the same set of language from which they could talk about the negative.

My thoughts are:
 * 1) If the first part is true then there is not a consistent set of "strengths" that we can document in an article on strengths and weaknesses.
 * 2) The second part says that the DSM documents the weaknesses side of strengths and weaknesses.

Background: This article was created in 2008 as a redirect to Strengths and weaknesses of evolution. In 2009 someone converted it into a stub article but unfortunately
 * Did not provide sources for the first three paragraphs and include rather general phrasing unrelated to the topic of "Strengths and weaknesses (personality)".
 * Following the introductory paragraphs the article included a table. Unfortunately, that table was a direct WP:COPYVIO of this web page.

The article has languished since 2009. I removed the WP:COPYVIO content yesterday leaving us with a nearly empty article that I'm now proposing be redirected.

@1000Faces - I saw your previous talk thread comment about "Consider a rewrite using well-researched concepts, like Big-5 personality continua of Costa & McCrae". I'm not a topic expert but suspect you mean Big Five personality traits, Paul Costa Jr, and Robert R. McCrae. The Big-5 system seems like a competing concept to Values in Action Inventory of Strengths. That leads me to think that this article could be a WP:DAB style page that lists various systems used to define personality traits. We could then include the book Character Strengths and Virtues on the page.

There's an unfortunate aspect in that ideally, we have WP:RS sources available that say that there are several different systems for categorizing personality strengths and weaknesses and ideally, lists them. --Marc Kupper&#124;talk 22:08, 30 December 2019 (UTC)