Category talk:Psychologists

	Biography portal This category is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This category is supported by the science and academia work group.

Psychology

This category 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 articles

cat vs. list

Note: I intend this to replace List of psychologists at some point, (automatic sorting, easier to keep updated, etc) and will be copying info from it so don't just delete this as a duplication.... - Xgkkp 18:32, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Psychologists, psychiatrists etc.

(I am not sure how to do this "Talk" thing. I assume I just edit it?) There needs to be distinction betweeen psychologists and those who have made significan contributions to the field of psychology. Being a psychologist, I feel very strongly about this. Maybe a solution is to have linking pages, one specifically a listing of psychologists, i.e., people with PhDs (MAs as well?) in the field of psychology and a list of others, either "non-psychologists who have made significant contribution to the field of psychology," or just "siginficant contributers to human psychology"? Rsugden 21:45, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I can see a lack of prominent psychologists in the modern era (e.g., Ulric Neisser, E. Tory Higgins, etc.). Nicholastarwin (talk) 18:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Licensing

I have major issues with restricting the definition of psychologist to those who have chosen to follow the APA licensing guidelines.

Mentioning that different U. S. states and different countries issue licenses that give legal meaning to term “psychologist” is a good thing. But it should be clear that this is a licensing issue, and licensed psychologists are a subset of all psychologists. The more fundamental term derives from the science of psychology – regardless of the license of the individual.

It makes no sense to say that an individual who makes significant contributions to the body of knowledge we call “psychology” is not a psychologist. The next step would be to divide up the body of knowledge itself. Should we say that a research claim or hypothesis is not really about psychology because it doesn’t have some sort of membership or licensing body’s approval?

Could it ever make any sense to have a list of psychologists that don’t include names like those mentioned in the discussion page of the list of psychologists (Sigmund Freud, Melanie Klein, Alfred Adler, Havlock Ellis, Milton H. Erikson, Alfred Kinsey, Elisabeth Kübler-Ross, William Masters and Virginia Johnson, Ivan Pavlov, Virginia Satir, Irvin Yalom)?

Once that limited definition is accepted (explicitly or implicitly) all that follows becomes tainted. For example: the number of individuals engaged in psychotherapy is far greater than statistics just on licensed APA members.

And the categories of employment are also skewed since it would only allow those that fit APA guidelines.

To be blunt, there are many people who ARE psychologists (in the broader and quite proper sense of the word) and who make significant contributions to our field that believe the APA’s attempt to monopolize this word is inappropriate, self-serving, and not the best way raise standards among practitioners or improve the body of knowledge. [unsigned comment by User:SteveWolfer 15:06, 15 June 2006]

I can't find anywhere that anyone has said anything about licensing. What are you responding to? The APA guideline has nothing to do with licensing. And anyway, this page is about those people who have made significant contributions to psychology, and almost all of them have Ph.D. level training. -Do c t orW 03:32, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All included

I added an {{allincluded}} template to this page. I think we should follow the good arguments put forth at WP talk:Categorization to include all psychologists in this category, even if they are also in a subcategory. The argument for this is to have a nicely browsable list of all psychologists. Comments? /skagedal^... 22:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why should the APA guidelines reg. Ph.D. be followed for non-American?

I do not think that the jurisdisction of the APA extends beyond the USA or not? This is not an American encyclopedia but an English language encyclopedia. In the Netherlands people who studied pscychology without received a Ph.D. are also labelled psychologists. Why deviate from this generally accepted practice? Andries 22:53, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Not only because of geopolitical differences, but because the subject is "Those who have made notable contributions to the body of knowledge we call psychology" - some of them were licensed in this way, others in that way, and some not licensed at all. Licensed psychologist is a subset of all psychologists and the American license is a sub-subset.Steve 23:00, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. Following the APA guideline, not even Ivan Pavlov (who had a PHd in natural science) would be in this category which strikes me as absurd. Andries 23:12, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can think of a solution that makes an extra category e.g. Category:psychologists by degree with subcategory Category:psychologists APA standards. Andries 23:01, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[1] I've mentioned above that the APA guideline has nothing to do with licensing. [2] It is common in all academic fields to make allowances for contributors in the early days who did not have the same level of training as is common today. The same can of course be done for those who make a genuinely notable contribution to psychology who are not Americans (or even for those who are). [3] The APA guideline is not arbitrary or unreasonable; it simply asks for a level of training that is standard for researchers these days, at least in the U.S., a Ph.D. level degree. [4] Why can't this guideline be viewed as a good suggestion for those outside the U.S.? -Do c t orW 04:06, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[1] APA policy calls for restricting the usage of the term "Psychologist" to those that hold a Ph.D. level degree from a university meeting specified criteria. They have succeeded to where various states have statutory law on the subject. APA guidelines also influence specifics of the licensing of practitioners of clinical psychology at other degree levels. Most state licensing boards draw upon APA standards to create the requirements, for example, for various Masters level licenses. The APA even influences the standards used in certifying schools. This is the nature of a standards organization. It is a private organization, but it ends up effecting legislation and administrative law. [2] The academy MUST grandfather in those who created the very foundation they are standing upon - it would be absurd to do otherwise. My issue is with the exclusion of contemporaries who don't fit the mold of American academic psychology. There is a kind of slight of hand where it is no longer a matter of what was contributed to the body of knowledge, as it is a matter of having the right citations, memberships and certificates. [3] I don't have any objections to the APA (other than their attempt to co-op the legal use of the word "psychologist" or lobbying efforts) - I just don't think that APA policy or goverment licensing laws are proper considerations in choosing notable contributers to the body of psychological knowledge. [4] Guidelines that help create better standards are a good thing - in or out of the States. But that's a separate issue. Steve 07:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've made the description of the category a little more general and not so US-centric. There is a link to registration requirements for psychologists worldwide. ----Action potential ^{t c} 11:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uh huh...

For all the bellyaching on this page about who is and isn't a psychologist (how about a professional who made tangible contributions to psychology?), it's not very useful. I was hoping to find a list of personality psychologists here, but that was apparently too much to ask. Yes, the question of whether or not "real" psychologists have PhDs or not is so much more important. Tcaudilllg (talk) 12:20, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]