Talk:Volition (psychology)

Unsigned
I am surprised to find no mention here of the philosophical controversy surrounding the concept of volition, qua free-will vs determinism. Do Psychologists by and large not acknowledge this debate? Do they tacitly assume one side of it? ______________ ALSO- Someone who is AN EXPERT [not me!] should address this issue in the context of the prefrontal lobe and anterior cingulate dysfunction in the case of "executive function deficit" from injury or disease. 209.6.187.121 (talk) 02:05, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That sounds pretty expertish to me; go ahead an address it. Will has a lot of controversy, even at a 101 level. Everything from what you're seeking (truth/justice/love/...) all the way to dimensions and further to omnism and back. Volition and will should be combined at this point, however volition would be a subset, most likely. Phil.andy.graves (talk) 03:06, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Incredibly complex language
The depth of psychology reference is great, but I think the article would be well-served with some more philosophical/layman's perspective on volition

NPOV?
It says "The observer's error is to assume that humans are essentially rational creatures, and that human will always serves that rationality. In fact, we are only partly rational, and often our will serves various motivations aside from reason."

This is not NPOV. To determine whether humans are in fact "only partly rational" we'd have to determine whether these "various motivations" are not rational ends in and of themselves.

It could as easily be asserted that we are all rational, but since being rational just means weighing costs and benefits what is and is not rational depends upon what a person's ends are and what information they have and what that information says about them getting what they want. 35.10.217.82 (talk) 10:29, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Occupational Therapy should not be included in an article on psychology
As an occupational therapy student with a BA in psychology, I strenuously object to the casual reference to Dr.Gary Keilhofner's Model of human occupation. This is an inappropriate and inaccurate use of his model,which is a model of occupational therapy. This is sloppy work and should not be tolerated. Occupational Therapy is a profession that stands alone with it's own theoretical base that is separate from psychology. I am beginning work on a separate page devoted to Dr. Keilfhofner and his model of human occupation ,which is not a part of any school of psychology. This issue needs to be addressed in an aggressive and professional manner — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.252.85.223 (talk) 02:57, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree, and I also found it jarring that this section referred to volition as one of three modes without providing what the other two modes are. Just an unhelpful reference all around. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.155.33.124 (talk) 17:35, 20 October 2016 (UTC)