Talk:Mood (psychology): Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 16:17, 18 February 2009

Psychology Start‑class High‑importance

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Slight edit: Added the "rose-colored / lemon-colored glasses" phrase, since (in my experience) those are more commonly used than the "spectacles" variant. - User:Gingerkitteh

I'm slightly concerned that this phrase might be found offensive by some who consider themselves optimists, since it is often used as a visual image

Slightly concerned! You ought to be very concerned about this whole article. It should not be under Psychology. --Mattisse 01:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mood is not a term psychologists use when they are trying to explain something. It is folk or lay psychology. The concept of mood is important if normal humans are to have any way of gaining access to the deeper articles in psychology. If someone takes the trouble to look up mood, but find no article or find one that takes them to an article only a psychoanalyst or cognitive neuroscientist or behaviorist could love, WP will not have done its job. If you take the trouble to look in some books on emotion, you will find that psychologists and cognitive neuroscientists have a great deal of trouble giving precise meaning (that they can use) to lay psychology terms. I am creating a short article called Habit (psychology) that is intended to provide a bridge between lay psychology and professional psychology. Formerly if someone clicked on habit, it usually went to Habituation which is not what normal people mean. DCDuring 03:24, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm concerned about this post too but for different reasons. There is mood research but this post does not dwell on it. Instead, focusing more on the pop-psychology aspects of Mood. For the real and good reasons given by DCDuring, maybe this article could be split into a vernacular mood article and a psychology mood article. I suggest readings from Watson as well, such as his Mood and Temperament book. The current article is completely cited from one (popular) researcher and as such is problematic. Cwingrav (talk) 14:54, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mood is certainly a term used by psychologists, normally in regard to a relatively long lasting positive or negative affective state. Also, consider mood disorders! I'll try to find some more sources to build up this article. --Jcbutler (talk) 16:17, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 6: / Line 6: @@
 :Slightly concerned! You ought to be very concerned about this whole article. It should not be under Psychology. --[[User:Mattisse|Mattisse]] 01:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
-:Mood is not a term psychologists use when they are trying to explain something. It is folk or lay psychology. The concept of mood is important if normal humans are to have any way of gaining access to the deeper articles in psychology. If someone takes the trouble to look up mood, but find no article or find one that takes them to an article only a psychoanalyst or cognitive neuroscientist or behaviorist could love, WP will not have done its job. If you take the trouble to look in some books on emotion, you will find that psychologists and cognitive neuroscientists have a great deal of trouble giving precise meaning (that they can use) to lay psychology terms. I am creating a short article called [[Habit (psychology)]] that is intended to provide a bridge between lay psychology and professional psychology. Formerly if someone clicked on habit, it usually went to [[Habituation]] which is not what normal people mean. [[User:DCDuring|DCDuring]] 03:24, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
+::Mood is not a term psychologists use when they are trying to explain something. It is folk or lay psychology. The concept of mood is important if normal humans are to have any way of gaining access to the deeper articles in psychology. If someone takes the trouble to look up mood, but find no article or find one that takes them to an article only a psychoanalyst or cognitive neuroscientist or behaviorist could love, WP will not have done its job. If you take the trouble to look in some books on emotion, you will find that psychologists and cognitive neuroscientists have a great deal of trouble giving precise meaning (that they can use) to lay psychology terms. I am creating a short article called [[Habit (psychology)]] that is intended to provide a bridge between lay psychology and professional psychology. Formerly if someone clicked on habit, it usually went to [[Habituation]] which is not what normal people mean. [[User:DCDuring|DCDuring]] 03:24, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 :I'm concerned about this post too but for different reasons. There is mood research but this post does not dwell on it. Instead, focusing more on the pop-psychology aspects of Mood. For the real and good reasons given by DCDuring, maybe this article could be split into a vernacular mood article and a psychology mood article. I suggest readings from Watson as well, such as his Mood and Temperament book. The current article is completely cited from one (popular) researcher and as such is problematic. [[User:Cwingrav|Cwingrav]] ([[User talk:Cwingrav|talk]]) 14:54, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
+Mood is certainly a term used by psychologists, normally in regard to a relatively long lasting positive or negative affective state. Also, consider [[mood disorder]]s! I'll try to find some more sources to build up this article. --[[User:Jcbutler|Jcbutler]] ([[User talk:Jcbutler|talk]]) 16:17, 18 February 2009 (UTC)