Talk:Gestalt therapy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 Portal |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, which collaborates on Psychology and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project.
|
||||||||
 |
Please help improve this article or section by expanding it. Further information might be found on the talk page or at requests for expansion. This article has been tagged since January 2007. |
[edit] Translation request
Listed in the German section of Wikipedia:Translation_into_English
This template is obsolete. Click here to initiate a translation request as explained in Wikipedia:Translation
Wikipedia:Translation/Gestalt therapy
[edit] Similarities
What kind of similarities are there between Gestalt therapy and Gestalt psychology? I've never found any, except from the name. There's actually been done research on this. For instance Henle, M. (1978) in Journal of the history of behavioral sciences, 14, 23-32. She concludes that there are no similarities. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.165.39.20 (talk • contribs) 28 Nov 2005. Begging your pardon, Lore Perls studied with Wertheimer. There are a number of relationships between gestalt psychology and gestalt therapy, one being the concept of closure. The reader is referred to an article by Robert Sherill, Ph.D.
[edit] Capital G versus lowercase G in "Gestalt"
So is it "Gestalt therapy" or "gestalt therapy"? I could see arguments in favor of either one (to wit, it's a German loanword, and German nouns are capitalized; on the other hand, "gestalt" serves as an adjective, and non-proper nouns aren't normally capitalized in English anyway). Thoughts? --Skoosh 19:55, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
- Uhh , I've been translating this and using the small g. I will be capitalizing all Gestalt words. If appropriate please be bold and revert.--Jondel 00:58, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
I made a few paragraphs under "being human" more fluid - I'm not sure how loose the translation should be, and so may have gone too far (Andrew Cooke, native english, living in Chile).
Please be bold, go ahead and correct or even translate. If not I will go ahead. I know my translation is deficient.--Jondel 04:02, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] fondo
I will be translating/changing fondo (foundation to ground). Pls revert if apprt.--Jondel 00:52, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Elephant shit
I'm afraid this would be Fritz Perls' word for most of this article . He often started his lectures with "Der are three lefles of discussion. Efferyday chicken shit; da usual bullshit; und Real Elephant Shit. Tuday we spread Elephant Shit."
Lumos3 22:09, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
- I'm inclined to agree. It's rather pretentious. It's hard to make this so complicated. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:37, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
- Ok, but for me to get much benefit from the comment, I'd have to know more about what you mean by elephant shit. I'm guessing it implies totally wrong. Can you supply a better reference, please?
- It may be in In and Out the Garbage Pail that Fritz defines elephant shit as talk about philosophy and Gestalt Therapy; I think there was one more item in the list. Alan Nicoll 20:14, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Translation vocabs
Please feel free to place your own.--Jondel 02:42, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
- limites ->boundary
[edit] knowledge of Gestalt therapy
Sorry, I appreciate very much the work that people put into translating, but it would be preferable, if it would be a person who has enough knowledge of Gestalt therapy and Gestalt therapy terminology.
The chapter: "Moral injunctions of Gestalt therapy" is nonsense - it does not at all represent modern Gestalt therapy.
I can't do much more than giving these critical comments - I am sorry about this - but my English is not good enough for more work on the article.
The German article on Gestalt therapy (Gestalttherapie) in Wikipedia is qite ok.
Friedhelm, Germany, 19. August 2005
P.S. As far as terminology is concerned it might help to look into this article by Gary Yontef: [1]
[edit] Needs a lot of cleanup
At best, this needs a lot of cleanup. It's better than nothing, but it makes this all seem much more obscure than it is. Yes, we should undoubtedly look to see if the German-language article makes some of this clearer.
BTW, the phrase coraza caractereológica still needs translation. I have no idea what it might mean. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:39, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
- Possibly coraza ->heart -> core, coraza; coraza caractereológica=>'core characteristics'?--Jondel 00:51, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
Can anyone work out what to make of the following sentence in the present article: "Finally, it is possible to emphasize beforehand that as a basic principle to all the described processes, that Gestalt therapy relies on the naturalness of crux of the psychological processes." -- Jmabel | Talk 19:17, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
- Contact Boundaries, p3:
- is the meaning that "identification" means that we recognize an attribute in ourselves and in another, while "alienation" means that we recognize an attribute in another but do not recoognize it in ourselves?
- are these concepts associated with the existence of the attributes, or our recognition of the existence of the attributes? Is there any concern about the accuracy of the mapping between the existence and the recognition of the existence (I'm just thinking about a 2x2 true table for existence of the attribute and our recognition of the existence of the attribute)?
[edit] Ralph Hefferline
In the article Ralph Hefferline is counted among the founders of Gestalt therapy. This is not correct in a strict sense. He made a considerable contribution to the first book on Gestalt therapy: "Gestalt therapy", but the development of the therapy is - in the beginning - restricted to Laura and Fritz Perls and Paul Goodman.
Friedhelm, Germany, Nov. 17th, 2005
[edit] Random
As someone trying to get a quick grip on gestalt therapy, this page did not provide me with a clear understanding of it.
this page was more effective. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.49.241.83 (talk • contribs) 28 Nov 2005.
[edit] Suggested sections
The following list moved here from the article where it existed for a while but was not taken up. Lumos3 21:27, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
- Introduction
- "Gestalt" and Perception.
- The Experience Cycle
- Awareness
- Contact Boundary Phenomena
- Polarities
- Field Theory
- Dialogue
- Experiment
[edit] Here and Now? How? (Wow.)
The opening paragraph now refers to "the experiential ideal of 'Here and Now' (rather than the Rogersian 'Here and Now')". Previously it referred to "the experiential ideal of 'Here and How' (rather than the Rogersian 'Here and Now')". I believe the previous text was correct, since it had stood for a long time, but there is no citation, and I hadn't run across this myself. Can anyone help sort this out? - Jmabel | Talk 04:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, a basic principle of Gestalt therapy is the idea of "living in the here and now" and working pychotherpeutically in the "here and now" as well. That includes memories (past) or plans (future), as soon as they appear in the actual situation, in the "here and now" of the ongoing therpeutical work. I guess, someone made a pun by changing "here and now" into "here and how" - that makes sense in so far as Gestalt therapy focusses rather on process (how?) than on analysis (why?). But this is no dogma!
Friedhelm, Germany, 9 April 2006
This from my contact high with GT in the 70's, but I seem to remember an emphasis on "How do I fix this problem now?" rather than the Freudian "Where did this problem come from?". Other comments have implied this, but I think its valuable to emphasize that you weren't expected to agonize over not being breast-fed, you simply changed your behavior for the better and moved on. Without having attended Esalen, this may have been related to the "hit and run" aspect of Perls' seminars there. JackofSomeTrades 16:35, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Bad news, possible copyvio issue
I believe that a lot of this came from the corresponding Spanish-language article, which at the moment is up for discussion as a possible copyvio of "Gestalt para principiante" by Sergio Sinay y Pablo Blasberg, ed. Era Naciente.
So do we start over, or what? - Jmabel | Talk 04:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
- Not having received any response, I have reverted to the August 4, 2005 Alex.tan version, which predates bringing in the Spanish-language material. - Jmabel | Talk 19:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
I suggest to take the chapters "General description" and "Principal influences" from the version "28 March 2006" as a new start for the article. From my knowledge of Gestalt therapy I find these chapters adequate and correct. And they were not developed from the Spanish article.
Friedhelm, Germany, 8 April 2006
I notice that the Spanish article is still extant while it is being debated. Are we being premature here? Have restored the 2 paragraphs suggested above. Lumos3 17:29, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
- In my experience, the Spanish Wikipedia is very lax with copyright and citation issues. The claim against the article is by someone who knows what he's doing; I don't know why they don't have the policy of suppressing the text while they discuss copyright, and I don't know why they typically take months to deal with the problem, but that's the way it is. It's one of several reasons I've pretty much stopped working there: although there are some excellent articles, overall the standards are too low for my tastes. I've been chewed out there for simply asking for citations. - Jmabel | Talk 18:16, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
I have changed "moral injunctions" to "simple injunctions" - that had been changed before, but got lost. I have put a comment beneath that I find necessary. If my English is clumsy, feel free to correct it. I have also put in again the weblink to the article by Gary Yontef "Introduction to Gestalt therapy". The article ist good. Gary Yontef belongs to the "leading" Gestalt therapists in the US, and his work and writings are of high qualitiy.
Friedhelm, Germany, 10 April 2006
- I think, in any case, that this short article now is actually an improvement. - Jmabel | Talk 18:17, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] "One may notice" cut
Cut from article "One may notice that there is a strong and interesting resemblance between Gestalt therapy and Buddhist (Buddhism) practices such as vipassana and approaches and Buddhist Depth Psychology." Perhaps one may. One would probably even be correct. But unless one has published and can be cited, this does not belong in the article. - Jmabel | Talk 18:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Reference not correct
Someone has put in this reference: "References - This article draws heavily on the corresponding article in the Spanish-language Wikipedia, which was accessed in the version of 14 August 2005. It was translated by the Spanish Translation of the Week collaboration."
This is not correct! This English Article is almost completely new and does not "draw on the corresponding article in the Spanish-language Wikipedia. Can someone please correct this?
Friedhelm, Germany, 25 June 2006
No reaction so far. I have removed the "reference".
Friedhelm, Germany, 27 June 2006
- You are correct to remove it. The original article on this was translated from the Spanish as a wiki project but it was later found to have been sourced from a copyrighted Spanish article and the bulk of it removed. See Bad news, possible copyvio issue section above. Lumos3 13:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- Thank you for your answer. Friedhelm, 28 June 2006
[edit] Interesting but needs citation
"As it turns out, most of the original part II of the book was written by Paul Goodman, and contains the meat of the theory. It was supposed to go first. The publishers decided that Part II, written by Hefferline, fit more into the beginnings of the self-help ethos of the day, and made it Part I, making for a less interesting introduction to Gestalt Therapy Theory."
Can someone cite for this set of claims (the factual claims about authorship split, "supposed to go first", "publishers decided", and the unattributed opinions "most original", "meat of the theory", "less interesting")? I'm not by any means saying this is wrong, but it does seem like the sort of thing that should be cited. - Jmabel | Talk 02:20, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
- This fact is well-known by those who were there, all of whom I have spoken with, including Isadore From, Laura Perls, Jim Simkin, Dan Rosenblatt. Unfortunately, this is mostly part of the oral history of Gestalt therapy and I can't cite written reference. Dan Rosenblatt is the only one of these persons still living [kiritz]
-
- That is almost the definition of original research, for which Wikipedia is not the appropriate place to publish. - Jmabel | Talk 18:48, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
-
It is not research; it is reported first-hand information from those who were there or talked with those who were there. There are other sources, such as published interviews of Laura Perls for those interested in tracking them down. [kiritz]
- There are several English-language sources, but I have no time to look the up. Here is at least one important source: Laura Perls in an interview with Ed Rosenfeld:
- http://www.gestalt.org/perlsint.htm
- And there is a German book by Stefan Blankertz: "Gestalt begreifen" (Peter Hammer Verlag 1996/2000) that discusses the question of authorship, especially Paul Goodman's part in it, and the coming into being of "Gestalt therapy" in 1950/51 comprehensively (p. 15 and 131 ff).
- Friedhelm, Germany, 15 July 2006
-
-
- Here is at least the citation from Laura Perls in the interview by Ed Rosenfeld: (LP = Laura Perls) "ER: Was Arthur Ceppos (of Julian Press, the original publisher of Gestalt Therapy) a patient?
-
-
-
- LP: No, he was not a patient. He came to a group for a while. His then girl friend was a therapist and she came into group and into therapy.
-
-
-
- ER: How did he become interested in the project?
-
-
-
- LP: He was always after new things. I don't know how that started. Those negotiations were between Fritz and Art Ceppos.
-
-
-
- ER: I've heard that what is now part two, the theoretical part, was originally supposed to be the first part.
-
-
-
- LP: Ceppos counteradvised because at that time the 'how-to' books were in vogue. He felt it would help the sale of the book if we changed it around. But for anyone who is a serious student of Gestalt therapy, the second part is really a theoretical and methodological introduction, while the other part is really experiments and practical work. " http://www.gestalt.org/perlsint.htm
-
-
-
- Friedhelm, Germany, 3 September 2006
-
[edit] Esalen statement
"Esalen is still there, though a lot of things go on at Esalen Fritz would have laughed about..."
This statement is both biased and unsupported. It should be considered for deletion.
This has been changed to reflect the fact that Gestalt therapy is no longer the thing it once was at Esalen. Still, he would have laughed...
Also, reference to the Esalen Institute needs to be either explained or deleted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jharley (talk • contribs) 7 July 2006.
- There are a lot of critical remarks by Fritz Perls about what was going on in Esalen in his autobiography "In and Out the Garbage Pail", but I can't look them up at present - maybe someone else can.
- Friedhelm, Germany, 15 July 2006
[edit] Suggested sections
This was part of the main article since February 2004, but was ignored by every editor. Its best placed here.Lumos3 17:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
- Introduction
- "Gestalt" and Perception.
- The Experience Cycle
- Awareness
- Contact Boundary Phenomena
- Polarities
- Field Theory
- Dialogue
- Experiment
[edit] Sections do not correspond to heading
The content of both the sections History and General description seem to contain paragraphs better suited to the other. Attempting to correct this. Lumos3 15:56, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Ego, Hunger and Aggression, Fritz and Laura Perls
I changed "Fritz Perls" to "Fritz and Laura Perls" and I wrote "the" Perls. This is justified, because Laura Perls contributed a lot of work and discussion to the book. She is indeed mentioned in the first preface of 1944, but then left out. (Please, can someone check my English in the article-text?)
She says in an interview: "LP: First there was a manuscript that Fritz had already written, he had been working on it. I had been working on it, too, but at that point I was satisfied to leave the glory to him. In Ego, Hunger and Aggression there are at least two chapters which I wrote completely: the chapters on the dummy complex and the one on insomnia. He gave me credit in the first introduction to Ego, Hunger, and Aggression but that credit was removed when Random House republished it. A friend wrote to Random House requesting that they re-insert the original introduction in any new edition of Ego, Hunger, and Aggression but they refused." From: Edward Rosenfeld: AN ORAL HISTORY OF GESTALT THERAPY.Part 1. A conversation with Laura Perls
Friedhelm, Germany, 7. Oct. 2006
- Thanx for providing this link - I have just included it on the article page as well as modifying the corresponding paragraph a little. Regards, --Technopat 00:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] reverted pacient (sic)
Over the years there seem to have been various periods during which the word patient predominated over the term client. The consensus nowadays among therapists (GT and other "genres") as well as psychologists in general, is to use the term client. This is especially apt referring to those psychologies stressing personal growth as opposed to "treating" disorders, and what have you. Feedback, anyone? --Technopat 08:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] re-arranged paras.
I have changed the order of some of the paragraphs to make the article more coherent - language-wise - but do not agree with the content of some of this stuff. Can somebody perhaps draw up a ranking of the ten (random figure) most important figures in GT (both versions?), past and present, and limit the article to these? Look forward to seeing some meaningful content here. Thanx. Technopat 08:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] deleted para.
Have deleted the following:
You won't see too much emphasis on Gestalt Therapy in clinical psychology programs in the US, however there are Gestalt institutes all over the world, including Asia and the South Pacific.
I don't doubt that it is true, but the style is not consistent with Wikipedia. If someone can re-phrase it, I have no objection to it being included somewhere in the text, possibly towards the end of the article. --Technopat 08:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
