Talk:Personality Plus
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate, you can edit the article. You can discuss the Project at its talk page. |
| Stub | This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at in the comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
The article doesn't sound like an encyclopedia entry but rather sounds like an ad. The system is presented as "easy to learn and effective when implemented" yet it does not cite any sources for this claim. The article also had no critical comments about itself (I added some).
As far as I know, this theory isn't popular in the academic field. I know a psychologists who I've talked about this theory several times and she thinks it's well-meaning but antiquated.
In September 2006 I started studying at the psychology department of the University of Helsinki. I was wondering if it'd be possible to find a more complete theory about personality types by listing a a large number of personality traits and looking for correlations between them. An older student, however, told me that as far as she can remember, such a thing has been attempted but no significant correlations were found. I understand this so that there are no clear personality types that'd model the reality well.
JuhazOne 12:07, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
"However, this article is not about Littauer nor about the book. It is all about understanding personality types for improved communication and relationships."
This is not an appropriate focus for an encyclopedia entry. Wikipedia is not an instruction manual; page on theory or practice would be appropriate but a self help text is not.
"Personality Plus talks about ..." What is "Personality Plus"? Is it a psychological theory? A business technique? A self-help tool? How can it talk about something?
"As with any personality-type model, the value comes in ..." Strongly implies that the model has some (unstated) value without references to back up the claim.
"applying the principles implied" what principles are implied by the model? How are they applied?
WP:V There appears to be no attempt at referencing anything except the single source which is then offerred for sale via a link to www.amazon.com. There is little attempt made to place this within a context. For an example of a reasonably well-referenced, and focused article in a similar space see Myers-Briggs Type Indicator.
The introductory paragraph needs to be rewritten to state clearly what the page is about in more neutral terms, referring to the knowledge being shared rather than its supposed utility.
The entire article reads like a self-help book of dubious scientific basis with strong implicit claims and directives to achieve personal outcomes.
This is best illustrated by the Interactions section:
"Understanding which personality profile (or profiles) best describes a person will help you appreciate who they are, and why they react they do. But the real skill comes in understanding the way your type interacts with their type, and taking advantage of that. This is perhaps best covered through examples:"
This includes second person references, use of an (informal) superlative ("real skill"), conversational style ("perhaps best covered") and yet another direction to the reader.
The other "reference" supplied, lists some of the stated personality types under Hippocrates and makes no mention of "Personality Plus" at all.
After all of that (and I'm sure I could go on) it's difficult to see why this page should remain at all.
[edit] Improvements
Agree with comments about style - it certainly needs a rewrite. Will begin that next. However, the article should remain. This is a personality system used in business and personally, and as such should be available on Wikipedia as a reference point. Agree it should not be an instruction manual - so will attempt to change that.
After the rewrite, I will remove the "to be deleted" template. Any remaining non-neutral sections should be flagged for rewrite. ThirteenthGreg 09:42, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Personality Plus.jpg
Image:Personality Plus.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 14:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
