Talk:The Principles of Psychology

Glaring Issues
The four topics SoC, Emotion, Habit, and Will are all extremely brief. For a what the article claims are supposedly the main four topics of the book, surely they could be expanded on. Furthermore, "...some topics stand out as being more useful and applicable than others, particularly the sections on stream of consciousness, emotion, habit, and will." Useful how? And to whom? Which fields of psychology benefit the most from these topics? The entire section of Comparative Psychology has absolutely no citations and reads very much like either direct quotes or close paraphrasing. I will further investigate this is section in the coming week. Other areas look like good starts, but these were the issues I found most glaring. MichaelCza (talk) 00:37, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Tough reading
I found this really very hard to read. The combination of jargonesque language (innatism?) and the writing style itself are IMHO too dense for such a context as this. Would it be possible to expand and simplify please? Also, how does James' book measure up to Freud? It seems to me that they are in different classes, like comparing Planck with Einstein (or Mrs Einstein if you prefer! http://home.comcast.net/~xtxinc/mileva.htm) LookingGlass 19:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * James is much more in tune with contemporary scientific psychology than Freud. He is an excellent writer, though his style is certainly dated. Freud's notions include many that are very counter-intuitive, some of which are basically false. James explains a great deal without straining credulity.


 * This book covers a vast range, which makes it difficult to write a good article that provides perspective. Even doing a decent summary is difficult, given the length. DCDuring 22:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Article need some major work
I recently finished reading both volumes of the The Principles of Psychology. (Yes, all 1200 pages.) I don't think this article comes anywhere close to giving a fair summary of that great masterpiece. Also, I would like to see a section that criticizes some of James' theories and presents some contrasting modern alternatives. (e.g. Freud, Jung, Erikson, Maslow, Piaget, Berne, Skinner, Chomsky, etc.) I wish I had the time do that myself. Unfortunately, I don't presently have the freedom to do that. In that case, I will personally challenge anyone who does have the time, and the know how to undertake that venture. If you have further thoughts on this, please feel free to add to reply to this posting; either here, or on my Talk page. Aletheia (talk) 18:09, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I have read James' "Principles of Psychology" quite thoroughly through the years (I am now 63). Although there is much more to be said to allow a comprehension of the whole, those of some Christian persuasion or background can summarize the work with the normal conclusion that James comes nowhere near giving a normal account of the "psyche" through any normal conception of "psychology" according to the uses of "psyche" in the Greek translation of the New Testament, especially in the words of Christ (Matt 10:28 (Luke 12:4-5)), or for that matter, the Hebrew-related forms in the Old (e.g., nephesh, Bereshit 2:7 (7:22)). James' conception, reflected from his usage, preserves no principle of non-contradiction between his language on the "psyche" based in his "psychology" and the language of the words of Christ any better than the stream of supposititiousness from the early "psychologists" through the latest; hence, there seems as yet little leeway from diagnosing James as a basically sophistic case of psychohypocrisy. D. O. Shaw198.60.1.105 (talk) 19:19, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Is this the best you can do ?
Having just read Richardson's great biography of Wm James I think this wiki piece on James' most notable contribution to psychology / philosophy. The same can be said of wiki main bio page for James.

Alfred North Whitehead said, "in western literature there are four great thinkers whose services to civilized throught rest largely on their achievements in philosophical assemblage; though each of them made important contributions to the structure of philosophic system. These men are Plato, Aristotle, Leibniz and William James." I am not competetent, whoever wrote these pieces needs to give them the proper treatment James merits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.187.121.227 (talk) 02:56, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Major rewrite
This article has been substantially rewritten by my PSYC 480 History and Systems of Psychology class, Spring 2014 semester. I think they did a nice job, although there is always room for improvement. I hope it meets with approval from the editors. J.R. Council (talk) 20:00, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Upcoming Improvements
I think that this article could be improved by adding more sections, cleaning up the existing sections, finding more sources, and providing a more balanced/well-rounded view of the topics. Briekm (talk) 22:47, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Improvements to be made
Looking at this article I see that there are improvements that are needing to be done. Above they note that it is difficult to read, so I will try to make this article more readable. Another improvement is that there is a lot of information missing about 'The Principles of Psychology'. I think it is important to add parts of every aspect of this topic to the article so that the readers can have a better understanding. Jess.ndsu (talk) 16:38, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

To-Do List
Make the article a bit longer and go more in depth on specific topics that are important to the principles of Psychology but don't overwhelm people who don't know much about psychology or specific sections of psychology.

Rude23 (talk) 00:27, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * expand more on William James 4 methods for people who are just learning about principles of psychology.
 * put in more references to support more of the findings William James found.
 * Talk more on the consequences of his results and why he had consequences from his findings.
 * Re-organize/clean up the existing sections
 * Create whatever new sections we might want
 * Make the article more well-rounded

I agree that we shouldn't make the article too overwhelming since it sounds like that was a problem for the previous class. It should be comprehensive but not overwhelming. Briekm (talk) 07:17, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

As for divvying up the duties, I could help with organizing references and/or I could work on x number of sections of the article and/or I could search for some more external links to provide at the bottom of the article. I'm pretty flexible and would be glad to write, organize, clean sections up---whatever is needed. Briekm (talk) 07:22, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Jess.ndsu (talk) 17:43, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Redo the article so that it is easier for the readers to understand
 * Go into the basics of The Principles of Psychology (Stream of Consciousness, Habit, Emotion and Will)
 * Add a section informing the readers about William James

I most definitely think that we should add more references so that we have legit information for the readers. Also need to re-organize and clean up the sections of this article because it is hard to understand and there isn't enough information for us to really know what is going on in this article. Jess.ndsu (talk) 17:43, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree we should separate a certain number of sections that each of us will work on. I think we should get together and decide which of us will do each task in our todo list/ outline. Jess.ndsu (talk) 17:49, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Outline
Briekm (talk) 07:17, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Introduction
 * 2) Perhaps a basic outline of what topics are included in the book
 * 3) More in the middle -- what else do you two think should go into the article (and do we want to keep all of the existing sections)?
 * 4) References
 * 5) See also
 * 6) External links

Megan and I met up a couple of weeks ago to better divide out the duties, and we decided that she will expand on Principles of Psychology and more on William James, Jessica will do habit and will, and I will do stream of consciousness and emotion. Briekm (talk) 23:18, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

More Detailed Outline
Stream of Consciousness
 * 1) Basic description of the concept
 * 2) How it was discussed in the book, perhaps finding a quote

Emotion Briekm (talk) 23:44, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Basic description of the concept
 * 2) How it was discussed in the book, perhaps finding a quote
 * 3) To make it more well-rounded, there could be some mentions of other theories of emotions and how James' differs

I think that we do have to be mindful, though, of making sure that we don't make the article too overwhelming or too long. Hopefully we'll be able to strike a good balance between getting more information into the article while not making it overwhelming. Briekm (talk) 23:37, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

More Detailed Outline
Habit
 * 1) Description of what Habit is
 * 2) Brief Quotes from James himself
 * 3) Why James stressed how this was an important influence of habitual responses for the maintenance of society
 * 4) Power and Inevitability of Human Habits
 * 5) James' conclusion about Habit

Will Jess.ndsu (talk) 17:13, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 1)  Description of what James thought Will was
 * 2)  James's personal experience with Will
 * 3)  Impact James had on his readers

I think we should probably put our four selected topics (stream of consciousness, emotion, habit, and will) all into one section rather than putting them into four separate sections. The article might get too overwhelming if we separate them out and write too much about them. I will try to think of a good title for the header, but if anyone thinks of something that is better or catchier, please feel free to change it! Briekm (talk) 04:18, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Comments and Commitments
These are all good ideas for improving the article. Please indicate which parts each group member will be working on. I see Jess has suggested getting together for this. Use this section or the To-Do list to indicate how you have split up tasks. J.R. Council (talk) 21:30, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Something you should definitely do is go back through the history of the article. See the version of 7 May 2014 for the article by a student from this class last spring which was "reverted" by "Omnipeddista" as documented in the following line from the history: (cur | prev) 00:16, 24 June 2014‎ Omnipaedista (talk | contribs)‎ . . (4,248 bytes) (-17,640)‎ . . (rv Cassio.vieiraneto per WP:COATRACK, WP:SYNTH and WP:NOR) (undo | thank). Click the links for COATRACK, SYNTH, and NOR to see the reasons this editor reverted it. I don't particularly agree with this, but it may help you avoid some mistakes. J.R. Council (talk) 21:41, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Outline
Principles of Psychology
 * background
 * where it started
 * small background on the founder
 * small touch on the 4 principles
 * intro into the 4 principles

William James
 * background growing up
 * background in psychology
 * how he got started in psychology
 * how he came to write principles of psychology

Rude23 (talk) 17:36, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Feedback for Assignment 9
General comments: You’ve got a lot of really good ideas for this article on the talk page. It’s time to start putting them into the main article. Be sure to look at this line in History: 19:16, June 23, 2014‎ Omnipaedista (talk | contribs)‎. . (4,248 bytes) (-17,640)‎. . (rv Cassio.vieiraneto per WP:COATRACK, WP:SYNTH and WP:NOR) Click on the links starting WP: These are the reasons a editor reverted a revision by this class last spring. Don’t commit these sins as you develop the article.
 * “More detailed outline” on the Talk page looks good for basic organization.
 * Note that there is already a good and detailed Wikipedia article on William James – just link to that rather than talking about James himself in this article.
 * I generally agree with the banner at the top which states: This article may need to be rewritten entirely to comply with Wikipedia's quality standards. You can help. The discussion page may contain suggestions.

Comments on specific sections of the main article follow: 1. Lead-in 2. Nineteenth century experimental results 3. Consequences of comparisons 4. Publication data 5. Add a final section on Legacy or Lasting Influences J.R. Council (talk) 22:30, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * this section is very sketchy and unsatisfactory. There should be a brief description of why Principles was important, as well as an overview of the topics it covers and how they are organized.
 * needs a better title, and very poorly organized. Some of this could be moved to the lead-in section (see above)
 * another bad section title. Better title, Comparative psychology, but that is only a small part of the book.
 * better title – Publication history. Give accurate reference information for first edition, then may list some notable re-issues, such as the HUP with forward by George Miller that is listed.

SafeAssign: Plagiarism Reports
I submitted my report on the afternoon of Monday, December 1st. The only match it seemed to find was with Wikipedia (of course!), so it looks like there's nothing to fix. Briekm (talk) 08:03, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

The four methods of quibble
There are four methods from James' book: stream of consciousness (James' most famous psychological metaphor); emotion (later known as the James–Lange theory); habit (human habits are constantly formed to achieve certain results); and will (through James' personal experiences in life).

That's about as far from Pinker's guidance on classic style as one can get. It's 20% content and 80% footnotes, and the four footnotes all head off in completely different directions (no parallel style here).

There are four methods used to obstruct clarity employed in the lead of the William James Wikipedia article: parenthetical about significance, parenthetical about the evolution of terminology, parenthetical to frame and enlarge, and parenthetical to contextualize.

Here's where this needs to go:

There are four methods from James' book: stream of consciousness, emotion, habit, and will. [Sentence on soc] [Sentence on emotion]  [Sentence on habit]  [Sentence on will]

Ta da!

I'm not close enough to this subject to craft the four appropriate sentences, or I would have done it myself. &mdash; MaxEnt 18:39, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Methods or topics
The opening paragraph says that there are four methods from James's book, and the lists what appear to be topics rather than methods. Vorbee (talk) 15:41, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

First words
Shouldn't this article include how the first sentence of James' book is that celebrated definition of psychology, namely, "Psychology is the science of mental life?"Vorbee (talk) 15:43, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Needs work
William James was very influential and not enough is discussed about his thoughts and ideas presented in the book, "The Principles of Psychology". The Editor states some concepts are more helpful than others and gives a brief summary of them but leaves out other concepts discussed in James' book. James was the pioneer of functionalism, which receives no mention in the article either. The article is also lacking sources in many areas. Drewwolfley (talk) 05:47, 30 September 2021 (UTC)