Talk:Self-help

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 5 April 2021 and 11 June 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Bluestarthinks. Peer reviewers: Butcherm1.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:55, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Neville Yeomans?

I'm curious about the addition of this name in the history section. Might it be WP:UNDUE? There isn't an article on this person in Wikipedia which might suggest they are not significant enough in "history" to be along side giants of literature like Ralph Waldo Emerson. Is the intent to represent another country (Australia) because of a perceived Systemic bias towards America to better represent all countries? the thoughtfulness of representing more countries is appreciated.

I suggest removing Yeomans. The article could grow to overwhelm a reader with every person in the self-help arena (Dyer, Chopra, and every country with a guru.) Going past originators of the topic risks leaving some people out and that dialog. Removing can keep it more concise, encyclopedia, unless we want to add a table with names. Less is more and weight can be honored. Comments? Eturk001 (talk) 00:14, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

adding "online/offline" may add confusion

An anonymous user added "online & offline" to second paragraph of lead.

I don't know if adding this adds much to the topic. Yes, maybe 100 years from now people might not know that self-help was offered "online", but that's a stretch. Also, "offline" is quite ambiguous linguistically. It means various things in culture, like let's talk "offline" which means "not during this session". Offline does not describe books or audio. And doing group work is possibly "other-help" still. "Online" is also a layman's terms but is vague. "Internet" is more accurate.

Does not seem to be the language of a scholarly article or encyclopedia. If no clear arguments for that specific add, let's remove it. Less is more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eturk001 (talk • contribs) 20:08, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Internet and in person is a little better, BUT, notice the 1841 reference I added from Emerson. He wasn't talking about seminars or online courses. He suggested that a man work on himself, rather than have someone else do it. That would be "introspection", self-awareness. It could be journaling or many other things. Later, it might have been books much later tapes.
I think too many qualifiers need to be added to describe every way. If some are left out, it's incomplete. Best to remove completely? Less is more.
We should probably add the Oracle at Delphi for "know thyself" as an early reference to self-help or self-awareness. Eturk001 (talk) 00:01, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism Section Longer than the Rest of the Article

That seems kind of unbalanced. I can understand pointing out common criticisms of self help but that should not be the primary focus of the article.

Also the criticism section lumps all of self-help together. Thats kind of ridiculous if you consider that each self-help book or movement has different techniques, movements and proponents. Also self-help books are focused on many different problems. So a section that talks about 'self-help' like it is 'one thing' is kind of silly.

In other words, there is no single 'self-help movement' and there never was.

Also self-help is just people helping themselves-- most people do that every day. So criticism of what everybody does all the time seems a bit irrelevant. Self help is kind of like breathing. Everybody does it all the time.

On a planet with 6 billion people, someone out there somewhere is probably criticizing breathing right now. But would you want to quote them and write about what they say at great length in an encyclopedia-style article about breathing?

Sean7phil (talk) 18:01, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just added this sentence to the opening paragraph. "There are many different self-help movements and each one has its own unique focus, techniques, associated beliefs, proponents and in some cases leaders."
This article needs a lot more work though, or should be deleted.
Sean7phil (talk) 18:05, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My remarks directed to Sean7Phil's remarks above. DCDuring's below seem to be separate comments.
I agree with Sean7P's remarks individually and in total. The field is broad, covering a wide range of 'teachers' trying to reach a wide range of clients with a wide range of techniques addressing a wide range needs. The general problem of broad and unsupported claims here is apparent in the shortcoming of the "The Criticisms" and of the Criticisms themselves. "Scholars have targeted self-help claims as misleading and incorrect.". Really? All scholars? All self-help claims? This is a preposterous claim.
As with academic research, there are frauds and scam artists in this field. But is it reasonable to claim that all writers and all methods are fraudulent, and all readers of this material are dumb groupies and none of them have ever gained anything from self-help? That only science, or university approved consultants and academics can ever provide us with effective solutions? From what I've observed most people touting academic credentials are spouting the same (self-help) materials as everyone else.
As Sean7Phil says: let's have a better balance here and some perspective particularly in the negatives section. If Steve Salerno made his claims for self-help, the academics would immediately point out the shortcomings in his outlandish assessments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by --50.68.134.51 (talk) 23:09, 20 April 2016 (UTC)50.68.134.51 (talk) 23:07, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect that the above remarks are mine, from a couple of years ago; apologies for failure to sign. But the article seems much improved; the criticism more balanced and reasonable. --50.68.140.60 (talk) 17:01, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Archived

I have just created Archive 2 for this page, encompassing most of the comments from 2007-2010. --Hordaland (talk) 18:52, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is good. Also, it might be a good idea to create a Wikiquote page for self-help (if it has not already been done). It would help those who need self-help to find it, and encourage those who have already achieved it to share their thoughts on the matter (however much others might think it "hits the mark", or misses it completely). --SpencerWalpole (talk) 10:42, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bias

Afticle is biased beyond beluef. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.30.183.44 (talk) 08:23, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Autoayuda

Significado y ejemplo 152.231.34.193 (talk) 04:07, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Define the following terms like self awareness 41.116.240.158 (talk) 14:55, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Self-help"