Talk:Modeling (psychology)

Changing the title / moving the article

Hi, I would like to propose to change the title of this article Modelling (psychology) towards Modelling in psychology or to Psychological modelling. Such a title would fit better with the Wikipedia titles of comparable articles like this one. These are listed in the article scientific modelling - Mdd 22:25, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm concerned that the sense of modelling is so different. The sense of the word modelling in NLP and psych is more like the fashion sense than like the simulation modelling or scale modelling senses. A parallel construction would be misleading. "Brain modelling" or "cognitive modelling" or even "emotion modelling" are more nearly parallel if they mean some kind of simulation modelling. The more I write, the more I realize that I am Against Move for the reasons stated. DCDuring 02:32, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Have you even taken a look at the titles of more then twenty other articles listed in the article scientific modelling. These tell something about the Wikipedia conventions on naming an article. Changing an articles name from:

• "Modelling (psychology)" to "Modelling in psychology"

is no big deal. Do you think all the other 20 titles are misleading as well? - Mdd 12:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I know all about the process. I'm concerned about the result. It's not because it's too hard, it's because it gets us to the wrong place. Does the MOS have something specific that bears on this renaming? DCDuring 13:20, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

It is because the subject matter of this article is different in kind that I don't see the value. "Aerodynamic modelling" and "Structural modelling" are much more alike than "Aerodynamic modelling" and Modelling fashion. As I said, I would be perfectly happy with an article named "Cognitive modelling" for computer simulation of human cognitive function. Could you please tell me why the result would be good. Why would uniformity of naming be desirable if the underlying thing is different? Or tell me why "Modelling (psychology)" is just like "Aerodynamic modelling" or "Structural modelling" or whatever other types of simulation modelling WP happens to have articles on. DCDuring 13:28, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I should ask one question first. Are their specialised reviews about Modelling in Psychology, and how are they called? - Mdd 14:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand the question. Whose reviews are you talking about? DCDuring 15:07, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The subject of modelling in psychology refers to the process of imitation and providing an example to someone. "I model the behavior how I want my children to behave." means "I conspicuously demonstrate that behavior in their presence." Confusingly, "The children modelled my behavior" means "The children imitated me." Does that help? DCDuring 15:07, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant Journals, Scientific Journal. I just checked and there doesn't seems to be any. I however found several things:

• This article starts with: Modelling in psychology ...
• ... and I suppose this article is meant to tell about the theory and practice of Modelling in Psychology
• Both Modelling in psychology and Psychological modelling are known terms according to Google (that are seldom used).

So what is the problem with calling this article Modelling in psychology. What is the problem of giving this article a regular name? - Mdd 17:49, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Please tell me what the benefit of the change is for the typical user. Please tell me how the existing name in any way is a violation of any WP policy or style. I simply don't see the point. I don't think that there is a presumption in favor of change. I can be convinced by some kind of presentation of reasoned argument. The only stated reason so far is that, in your opinion, it would fit better with some list of articles on other completely unrelated subjects. Upon examination the uniformity that you refer to in scientific modelling is a misleading uniformity created by your own mistaken use of "piped links", contrary to MOS. DCDuring 18:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I understand my problem with this article. the first sentence is rather misleading:

Modelling in psychology refers to the process of teaching behavior...

This is not the most usual reference. See the next talk item. - Mdd 20:25, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Is this article not about the use of modelling methods and techniques in psychology??

I am presuming all the time that, this article is about the use of modelling methods and techniques in psychology. But I wonder if I am wrong. In this discussion, I just learned their are all kinds of specific forms of modelling in psychology, like:

• "Brain modelling"
• "Cognitive modelling"
• and "emotion modelling"

And their is a some small literature about "Psychological modelling" but this is not what this article is about. This article is about the "Modelling in psychology, that refers to the process of teaching behavior".

Now I get even more confused if I search for "Modelling in Psychology" on Google BETA. The first hits are about:

1. Catastrophe theory modelling in psychology (1998)
2. Computer-modelling in psychology (1988)
3. Connectionist modelling in psychology (1991, 1997, 2001, 2003, 2004, 2005)
4. Covariance structure modelling in psychology (1989)
5. Formal modelling in psychology (1997)
6. Mathematical modelling in psychology (1997, 1999, 2001, 2003, 2005)
7. Modelling in psychology (1997, 1998, 2003, 2004)
8. Mental modelling in psychology (1989)
9. Statistical modelling in psychology (1972)

With two example in particular:

A Concise Psychological Dictionary

By Petr Nikolaevich Shikhirev, Artur Vladimirovich Petrovskiĭ - Psychology - 1987 - 358 pagina’s

Page 191

Modelling (in psychology), the study of psychic processes and states with the aid of their real (physical) or ideal, above all mathematical, models

N-Dimensional Nonlinear Psychophysics

Theory and Case Studies - Pagina 15

by R. A. M. (Robert Anthony Mills) Gregson - Mathematics - 1992

The necessity of one —> many modelling in psychology has been noted also, from a different perspective, by Smithson (1988) in criticising the use of the ...

Maybe I should start from this information all over again and write an own article about Modelling in psychology. - Mdd 19:58, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I thought that you had actually read this article before putting the notability tag on it and was impugning your motives. Now that I see that you hadn't read the article, I have to wonder why you thought it was not notable. DCDuring 04:38, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Notability

You can do whatever you would like, but the dominant meaning of the term in psychology is what is in this article. You seem to object to this article because it interferes with a uniform naming convention, apparently of your own conception. You seem to have given it a notability tag to support this plan by having it moved or deleted. Uniformity of names is not a WP policy or even a guideline. You have not in any way demonstrated that the concepts in this article are not notable, nor that they are, in reality, called something else.

• Your original research (See WP:OR) on Google citations shows initiative but are not a valid source for the point you are making: that the concept in this article is not notable.
• I dispute the reliability of a dated, translation of a Russian Dictionary of Psychology for contemporary psychology and psychotherapy.

• I didn't get the point of the quotation from the "Psychophysics" title. It is one branch of psychology dealing with sensory processes.

• Please produce some reliable print citations that would suggest that the 2006 APA Dictionary is not an authoritative source on matters psychogical for an English-language encyclopedia.

Accordingly, I expect you to remove the notability tag.

BTW, artificial intelligence is really better called "intelligence modelling". DCDuring 04:38, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Some points:

1. I placed the notable tag after I studied some 40 to 50 books on Google BETA searching for "Modelling in psychology". In the item above, I listed my first findings.
2. We seems to be having a different perspective on this subject. Yours is very specific, mine very general.
3. I see modelling in psychology as the use of various types of theoretical models in cognitive sciences, such as "diagrams", box-arrow type models, interactive and connectionist models, neurobiological and neural models
4. On your talk page you admit you are talking the modeling technique as used in Cognitive Behavior Therapy

Since you don't seemed to share or even accept my perspective I propose we ask the WikiProject Psychology for advice. - Mdd 18:33, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Merge current content to observational learing

I've proposed a merge to observational learning and then redirect this page there. ----Action potential ^{t c} 03:38, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

If observational learning were the only meaning, I would have done it long ago. I just got my APA dictionary and am trying to use it as an aid when disputes such as this arise. I know of no reason why the dominant meaning of the term in psychology should be deprecated in the pursuit of terminological uniformity. DCDuring 03:56, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

What would your article cover that is not already covered by observational learning or imitation or cognitive imitation? These are separate articles. ----Action potential ^{t c} 04:07, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

A merge seems like a good idea. I wonder if renaming the article to soemthing like Modelling (observational learning). It has been become clear to me that DCDuring is focussing on a very specific type of modelling with some parts of psychology. - Mdd 18:36, 7 October 2007 (UTC)