Talk:Biosocial theory

Medicine Mid‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Psychology Mid‑importance

	Psychology portal This article 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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Discussion deleted?![edit]

Why was this discussino page deleted? And why is it so hard to get a page created? Would somebody who reads this take the time that would otherwise be spent deleting this, spend it on creating a stub article for Biosocial_theory so we can get the editing started? thanks in advance. --68.22.19.194 19:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please use Wikipedia:Articles for creation to submit new articles (if you already have the text in mind) or Wikipedia:Requested articles to propose this article. Talk pages of articles that do not exist will be speedy deleted so this page is really not the place to suggest the article's creation. Thanks. Flyingtoaster1337 00:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating it. :)

Yeah, the problem was the original stub was speedy deleted after hanving been requested and created.. It's all good now though. Thanks again. --68.22.19.194 15:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, this page was expanded fast. I've also seen Biosocial Theory for other things as well, besides DBT. Should this be added? Silver seren 18:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hell yes :o) (in my "Simon Cowell" zone, having happily discovered, and hopefully slightly nurtured, relative newbies who want to create an important and valuable article) --Zeraeph 21:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, i'm not all that much for wording things right, but I can give you some links with information.

Biosocial Theory of Neurosis: http://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/genpsyneurosis.html

Biosocial Theory of Creativity: http://creativestuff.net/Creativity_Theories/Creativity_Theories/Biosocial_Theory_of_Creativity_2006112386.html

Is that good? Silver seren 22:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Connection playing up at present, so I'll have to get round to it later, but that's great! --Zeraeph 22:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry i'm not gifted with good descriptive NPOV skills or I would do it myself. -_-Silver seren 02:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not that gifted either. Just took a look at your profile and I reckon you should try to take a shot at these things if you have some time. You know the subject better than I do, and will have a better understanding of how to synopsise the important points, for one thing. But apart from that, if there are any errors of spelling, grammar, or POV, I (or somebody) will try to clear them up, and if we don't get it right someone else will. Could be a great way to learn how to discipline your writing (which you will need), a bit like the way "spellcheck" finally taught me how to spell...MOST of the time (main reason I "get" all those "thier"s is because I have a slightly more advanced problem with words like "percieve"/"perceive" that won't go away). Later...--Zeraeph 11:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did. I'll add more to the Creativity thing later when I have more time. I hope what i've written is alright.Silver seren 15:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reductionism bias[edit]

It seems to me that using the term Reductionist to classify biosocial theory is a POV rather than a statement of justifiable fact. Biosocial theory seems to me to include BOTH biological AND environmental factors i.e (assumign learning is present) both NATURE and NURTURE. So how is the term justified in the introduction, where it seems added solely as a POV perjorative.

Please justify substantively or delete.

LookingGlass (talk) 19:41, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GRAMMATICAL MISTAKE[edit]

This sentence does not make sense:

"A traumatic event can start the emotional or interpersonal disregulation that spawns a vicious cycle of increased negative behavior as the person continues to be false information that people are receiving react to the environment's invalidation and the environment increasingly devalues them."

I ask, how does a person continue to "be false information?"

In particular, this part of the sentence does not make sense:

"as the person continues to be false information that people are receiving react to the environment's invalidation..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.151.80.25 (talk) 22:02, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Second flag for this section. As above. Bump to raise author awareness.

Third reader: I updated the sentence to say what seemed consistent with the theory as presented here, but am not an expert. Feel free to change if wrong, or add. (There may be interesting related issues wherein people incorrectly read social cues and as a result react to environmental invalidation that never existed from the perspective of group norms of social interaction for example, in which case you might say people are receiving "false information," I suppose.)

Infant Biosocial Development[edit]

I would like to add a section about biosocial development in infants, focusing on their first two years. It would talk about their body and brain growth, and how it helps their motor skills. Carolinarx (talk) 19:22, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]