Talk:Subfields of psychology

Critical psychology
Wow, no discussion yet?! Anyway, re. : True, critical psychology is rather esoteric. But a passage on critical psychology "spices things up" a bit; it adds some pertinent--if surprising--variety. And, since Wikipedia is WP:NOTPAPER, we can do those sorts of things, so long as we don't violate WP:SIZE or WP:DUE in the process. The tiny passage certainly does not bloat the article beyond size limits. If that two-paragraph subsection carries undue weight, then it always could be trimmed to, say, one paragraph (probably the first). If, in terms of content, Wikipedia is to stand out from conventional encyclopedias, it's going to have to be somewhat unconventional at times. Indeed, it'll have to be a little "esoteric" in its own right. Cosmic Latte (talk) 16:27, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

P.S. As far as due weight is concerned, the subsection (if re-added) would be one of twenty-three listed. And 1/23 (roughly 4.3%) is not very much at all. Too much "spice" can be overwhelming, but even just a little bit can help to keep the intellectual taste buds awake. Cosmic Latte (talk) 18:30, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Note that the lede for the page says that the article covers the "major areas of inquiry that comprise psychology." It is not meant to be a comprehensive list. To me, due weight is the consideration of whether or not a topic should be included at all. If a subfield is notable, then editors should work to create a useful entry (of any length). If it is not notable, then it shouldn't be included at all (at least not on a list of major areas). The argument that the section is not very long, doesn't speak at all to whether or not the subfield is notable. And since this is a collaborative encyclopedia, section length will always be in flux. My opinion has nothing to do with the merits of critical psychology - it has to do with the fact that is is not a major research area or degree specialization. To include it in the same list as social, cognitive, and developmental psychology (which gives it the appearance of equal weight) just seems absurd. Because of its breadth, psychology is already a difficult topic for people to understand. We're not doing anyone any favors by clouding the picture and highlighting niche disciplines. This list is entirely too long (there isn't a psychology department in the world that has 23 separate areas); eliminating critical psychology, global psychology, and postmodern psychology seemed like a conservative approach to focusing the scope of this list. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 20:30, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Merge

 * I don't find a merge proposal on these talk pages, but merger of this with List of psychology disciplines is a good idea, so I support. Having the two pages separate is an obvious WP:POVFORK. What criterion could there be for being a "psychology discipline" but not a "subfield of psychology"? MartinPoulter (talk) 13:32, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. Two names for the same thing.  Lova Falk     talk   19:47, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

This list is more updated in division of psychology for the description of its research, development and application. As a matter of fact, lots of information contains in the page of "Psychology" is not the perspective of contemporary psychology nowadays, which is more multicultural and dualistic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anneisceo (talk • contribs) 01:12, 12 February 2014 (UTC)