Talk:Human givens

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. Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it needs.

I have removed the following sentence from the article:

It has a greater measure of scientific respectability than most psychotherapies.

I did so because I could not find sources to support this. I did however find what appears to be some contradictory information, including the source below that quotes Ivan Tyrell, one of the two developers of the framework:

The anecdotes are positive, so where’s the evidence? Ivan Tyrrell comments: "People are starting to do it [research]—but we aren’t doing it ourselves. If a plane is flying, you don’t need to keep showing that it’s possible to fly. In the same way we have shown that our method works and it works repeatedly. So it’s up to people who want to provide evidence to do the research." [1]

This state of affairs seems common to many psychotherapeutic techniques. Practitioners develop techniques that they find to work. --Tabor 20:31, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

This whole article sounds like an extract from publicity produced by Mindfields - the commercial oprganisation who promote the Human Givens approach. It completely lacks any reference to external sources - unsurprisingly, since as far as I am aware no research has been conducted or published on the approach.Kim dent brown 22:50, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I've been trying to find some decent research on Human Givens, but have been unable to do so. The quote above is worrying - "We think it works so we haven't researched it", and contrasts with many other therapies. (EG CBT, which does have a large body of evidence.) I don't want to go as fas as to say Human Givens is pseudoscience, but is it? 82.33.46.11 15:27, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

The previous comment quotes Tyrrell as saying "We think it works so we haven't researched it" but this is a misquote, it doesn't say "We think", but rather "we have shown". The previous comment cites CBT as having a large body of evidence and the Human Givens approach uses a CBT model which has been brought into line with current research from neuroscience. A great difference between HG and other approaches is that it takes neuroscience and evolutionary biology as it's starting point rather than previous psychological theories. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beathead (talk • contribs) 19:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] afd... references?

maybe put in some peer reviewed reference soon, or throw this up on AfD. Search the first bolded term in the article on just edu sites on Google. As of today there are zero results. --Emesee (talk) 20:37, 24 May 2008 (UTC)