Talk:Mood (psychology): Difference between revisions
→Improving this article: new section |
|||
Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
== Improving this article == |
== Improving this article == |
||
This article has substantial problems. It doesn't cite reliable sources nor does it cite sources correctly nor does it cite them often. It also includes plenty of irrelevant and out-of-date information and excludes a decent amount of relevant information. While I don't currently have time to |
This article has substantial problems. It doesn't cite reliable sources nor does it cite sources correctly nor does it cite them often. It also includes plenty of irrelevant and out-of-date information and excludes a decent amount of relevant information. While I don't currently have time to make edits, I just wanted to make a posting that calls attentions to the deficiencies in this article. [[User:Slyons123|Slyons123]] ([[User talk:Slyons123|talk]]) 03:32, 11 July 2013 (UTC) |
Revision as of 03:33, 11 July 2013
Psychology Start‑class High‑importance | ||||||||||
|
[Untitled]
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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- I should point out that the intro is good, I'm just more concerned about what follows. Thanks for the article! Cwingrav (talk) 15:17, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Improving this article
This article has substantial problems. It doesn't cite reliable sources nor does it cite sources correctly nor does it cite them often. It also includes plenty of irrelevant and out-of-date information and excludes a decent amount of relevant information. While I don't currently have time to make edits, I just wanted to make a posting that calls attentions to the deficiencies in this article. Slyons123 (talk) 03:32, 11 July 2013 (UTC)