Talk:Personality

Archives (Index)

2013 2014 2017 2020 2021

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 October 2018 and 5 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sanjanamahtani.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:16, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Adam firlotte, Amcampbell2, Mabuckle.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 06:26, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Two dimensions

I've added the theory of tho dimensions. When i was taught this subject in my psychology bachelor, i first learnt the two dimensions as proposed by Eysenck and then the big five. In many factor analyses it's a matter of how strongly you boil down your factors whether you find the big five or these two dimensions. PizzaMan

♨♨♨]] 17:07, 27 December 2019 (UTC) I agree, I added a paragraph about the Eysenck and the Cloninger systems of measurement. Vinculo3 (talk) 18:47, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Personality style into Personality

seemingly same stuff fgnievinski (talk) 04:27, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

I've redirected Personality style to Personality without a merge, as there wasn't really anything worth keeping that isn't already discussed here. --Xurizuri (talk) 06:58, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

That makes sense to me. SnailsSpace (talk) 16:42, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Organization of Article Moro430 (talk) 03:41, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

The article could benefit from an organizational standpoint. The Introduction of the article mentions topics and subjects that arent talked about or expanded upon in the body of the article; it almost feels misleading.

I would also say tha swapping the first and 2nd paraphraph would make the paper feel stronger as a whole. Not only that, but there is a section called biology that makes sense to go first, and the history sectin to go last. That could just be personal preference, however, when it comes to writing articles or informational papers, it usually starts with the broadest topics and funnels from there.

I also think a this paper would benefit from a section on age and how young personality can be defined, as well as how personality changes throughout the stages of life. Moro430 (talk) 03:40, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree with the comments on the introduction paragraph; it lists several psychologists who are not mentioned at all in the article: Sigmund Freud, Alfred Adler, Gordon Allport, Hans Eysenck, Abraham Maslow, and Carl Rogers. There are also no sources following these names. I think Freud should be given a mention in the History section, as his theory of the id, ego, and superego was among the first mentions of personality. Charlottercrane (talk) 06:10, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree, and I also feel that the article spends a great deal of time explaining personality tests that are only mentioned briefly later in the article. Briefly mentioning that tests are discussed later, without going into specifics right away would be a more focused approach.Dannyb37 (talk) 22:29, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

References

Suggested Improvements

With the topic of Personology being mentioned I believe that adding the Thematic Apperception Test to the measuring category would be necessary. I also believe that the Biology and Developing Biological Model sections could be merged to help with conciseness. There is not much is said in the Biology section that could not also be said in the Developing Biological Model section.Avaught23001 (talk) 21:07, 24 January 2024 (UTC) Avaught23001 (talk) 21:06, 24 January 2024 (UTC)