Talk:Narrative psychology

Rescued article

I have just rescued an article up for G13 deletion at Articles for Creation and moved it to Talk:Narrative psychology/Rescued AFC submission. There seems to be a lot of good stuff in it that could be merged into the existing article. It might even be that it could entirely replace the existing article. There arer certainly a lot of good references that could at least go in as further reading. I'll leave that for editors here to decide, but if the material is used the subpage here should not be deleted to preserve the history for licensing reasons (although it could be blanked and replaced with a do not delete message). Spinning Spark 00:28, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There has been an extraordinary amount of vandalism on the Narrative psychology page that exists in some archaic version of the original article written by; John McKinnon. As it is, I didn't think that it was possible that this article would receive so much attention. I have, as a result, created a new page entitled Narrative Psychology and request that it replace the convoluted definition that exists on the page where the confusing responses and additions make it almost unreadable and nearly impossible to understand. I hope that those people who are sincerely interested in the process of Narrative psychology will add to it's definition in a way that broadens, not limits, the definition in a way that is not objectionable or confusing to the general public, even if the additions are not exactly what the author intends to be more exacting. The way it is, seems to be almost political, each addition being of a special interest. The existence of narrative psychology is not to redefine,rather; it is, in it's own right, an effort to achieve contact with lucidity.

Thank you, John Donald McKinnon

Narrative Psychologist Graduate of University of Wisconsin, Green Bay (2001). Independent Degree Program.68.117.108.181 (talk) 01:05, 7 November 2016 (UTC)68.117.108.181 (talk) 00:58, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Everything is among the least objectionable possibilities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JOHN MCKINNON (talk • contribs) 05:34, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Chatman is not spelled with two -t's. Sorry about that.

Hi, my name is John D. McKinnon. I have written an article for this page and would like to save it -as is. I doubt it has been on the Narrative psychology page long enough to be read by anyone. I am told by the MEDIATION page that I should have stated my case on the TALK page prior to any formal resolution. I am not sure that there are enough people interested in the SCIENCE and/or the subject of Narrative psychology to maintain -even the start a discussion (the merit of my article). Nevertheless, those of you who want to maintain the diversity and integrity of the Narrative psychology page -I would very much appreciate it if you could go into the HISTORY part of the Narrative psychology and take a look at the last article It is a different point of view than my be appreciated by other Narrative Psychologists, however; I feel very comfortable revising it to meet your standards -if necessary. Please give me advice on what you feel conflicted with. If you support the the validity of my article -naturally, I would appreciate knowing that aspect, as well. My degree is as stated as -Narrative Psychology is available on the University of Wisconsin, Green Bay MAY (2001) Newspaper. Thank you, for your time and effort John D. McKinnon JOHN MCKINNON (talk) 03:51, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The last of the dying science of Narrative Psychology. It is with hope no one depends upon the title and definition of narrative Psychology for help in any way shape or form.

It seems that this happens to everybody... using language to define the motive beyond the the text/ picture, etc. is doomed to; no end. A simple definition will not, due to the subjectivity -psychology as an "art form" carries on into the center of an element of strategy befor science. This page, in my opinion, has reached a point of non-sense/non-science. Now, where is the contribution toward the sincere, careful, deep concern for the welfare of our fellow human beings? Or is the ego of this new format lost in a relevancy of shady impertence? I can't recommend any further study of Narrative Psychology beyond finger painting.

Sincerely,

John D. McKinnonJOHN MCKINNON (talk) 06:51, 3 December 2016 (UTC) John Donald McKinnon, Narrative Psychologist, University of Wisconsin, Green Bay (2001}.JOHN MCKINNON (talk) 06:39, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good example of the problem here - your paragraph above makes little sense to an everyday reader. Wikipedia is designed to be read and understood by people who are not specialists in an area, but what you are wanting to add is obscure and unclear. Furthermore, while you keep saying you are an expert in the area, the only reference you have provided is your own name, which, as has been explained to you multiple times, is not good enough. Wikipedia editors need to provide evidence in published, secondary sources not simply their own opinions or ideas, regardless of who they are. Melcous (talk) 12:05, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The words narrative Psychology

Is it possible,like that the title narrative psychology is to simple and perhaps, obvious to use as a field of study. It seems like all psychology is narrative? Is there a distinguishing factor that would be more specific than calling it The storied nature of human conduct? I am sorry if this observation is insulting. That we keep track of our lives through stories? I have read the complicated definition. I agree with almost every aspect of the definition. However, my education is focused in many approaches toward Psychology. Is there a way that you can use more science based language? The reason I ask, is because, if a person does not know what the point of the definition is, at least, they won't "walk around know half of something.". There is no question that you have a firm grasp on this study. In fact, the best I ever read. I wish that you would go, all or nothing on thi definition, perhaps some relative mathamatitions equasion, no words, just numbers. I realize that physics is useless in regard to the potential issues. How about some bi-nary code? Thank you for clearing u, with extraordinary effort, to make an impurical effort. Success is within you. Please keep up the fantastic work.

Sincerely, Jon Pelican

Jonn Pelican (talk) 06:07, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Narrative Psychology as a Science.

Narrative Psychology has been highly refined by way of the Neurological effect of Language/Lingustic's and cross referencing Brain Function's (Broca's and Wernikki's Aera of the Human Brain). Studies using Magnetic Resonance Imaging have determined that there are Scientific predictable Neurological responses toward Stories, Words/Language, Phonetics. Etc.

In full, the present definition of Narrative Psychology as read out in Wikkapedia is so inadequate and vague that it has made the definition immutable "rut" ironically difficult to evade.

As to this present date, 3/10/2021, everytime I have added to, tried to refine, and/or offer a Science based variation of the Definition of Narrative Psychology, it has been altered or incompletely deleted (usually by an anonymous source).

As for the Academic/University Study of Narrative Psychology, I am the precedent. I am the first Person in The United States of America to receive a Science degree of Narrative Psychology from a fully accredited/Nationwide University. University of Wisconsin (BSc. 2001). 2600:1700:DF90:6A70:AD8A:3E0C:5EEA:30DA (talk) 17:15, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: incompletely to: completely. 2600:1700:DF90:6A70:AD8A:3E0C:5EEA:30DA (talk) 17:20, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Be aware that who you are has no relevance on wikipedia - what maters is content proposals backed up by reliable third party sources. I suggest you make such proposals here and gain consensus -----Snowded ^TALK 17:40, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@2600:1700:DF90:6A70:AD8A:3E0C:5EEA:30DA Finally an accurate definition. Good luck with maintaining it's integrity.

It's almost, as if, Wikipedia is in the business of censoring out truth. And, is stuck on an antiquated definition. John Barth's (talk) 19:03, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@2600:1700:DF90:6A70:AD8A:3E0C:5EEA:30DA Yup. Apparently Narrative Psychology is doomed to writing the definition of Narrative Psychology without using Human's. This ought to evoke some idiotic responses. John Barth's (talk) 19:08, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This page does not exist? Well, then, Wikkapedia does not exist or in the word's of Howard Zinn: "you do not exist".

"Media is the message".

-Marshall McCluean

"Denying the existence of this page is the same as Wikkapedia being non-existent. Perhaps on an intellectual level, it really does not exist." -JD McKinnon 2600:1700:DF90:6A70:AD8A:3E0C:5EEA:30DA (talk) 17:34, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New topic.

Truman Capote could have destroyed the institution of Wikkapedia in a paragraph. I can name that tune in 20 word's! -JD McKinnon 2600:1700:DF90:6A70:AD8A:3E0C:5EEA:30DA (talk) 17:37, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Narrative Psychology

The Science of motive based Language. John Barth's (talk) 18:59, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]