Talk:Transpersonal psychology

discipline distinguished by its unique underlying theory not unique objects of study?

IMHO non transpersonal psychologists (as well as lay people) are well aware of phenomena of religious conversion, peak experience, altered states of consciousness etc. They just explain these in "reductionist" terms that don't involve spirituality, transcendental, life force and other modern shamanism under cloak of science; preferring terms like motivation, sensory overload, double bind etc. So transpersonal psychology seems notable and distinct in their inquiries' theoretical framework rather than their object. 76.119.30.87 (talk) 19:09, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, there seems to be overlapping interests with other disciplines...I agree. Ferrer actually integrated a lot of insights from Religious Studies into his Transpersonal theory in his landmark book "Revisioning Transpersonal Theory". --Hawol (talk) 20:57, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

"cloak of science" sounds derogatory. Actually almost all of psychology uses "black box" ideas, including Personality- and they do that kind of science in the form of statistically analyzed questionnaires. The scientific method-bound Behaviorism has been rejected almost entirely from clinical psychology, with perhaps the exception of severe autism. Cognitive Behavioral approaches, including therapy CBT, were formulated specifically rejecting Radical Behaviorism, and insisting on taking into account unmeasurables like Cognition,(sometimes very specifically cognition). Until there's measurable evidence on how neurochemical and electrical impulses translate into thoughts and/or feelings; "motivation","cognition", and so forth are no more scientific than "soul" or "lifeforce". I accept your overall point that other psychologists tend to use more reductionist, and materialist terminology, I simply reject the premise that their approaches depend any less under a "cloak of science".

In this context, I'm sorta defending Transpersonal Psychology, but at the same time, I am insisting the the entire field of Psychology is suspect. Most science only accepts statistical significance at 5% (A p-value less than 0.05 (typically ≤ 0.05) is statistically significant. It indicates strong evidence against the null hypothesis, as there is less than a 5% probability the null is correct) Whereas Psychologists accept 10%, a p-value of 0.10, otherwise the majority of findings would have to be thrown out! In contrast, Transpersonal psychologists generally reject more of the very premise of the scientific method. While "non-transpersonal" psychologists are "aware" of altered states, peak experiences and religious conversion (I assume you meant a conversion from atheism or agnosticism), they do not design experiments in these subjects. The don't address these subjects, because they cling to the hypothesis that much of the mind (and therefore spirit) is contained in neurological processes, While these processes cannot be measured today, they assume in the future, if perhaps far future, they will be. The result is that Transpersonal psychologists ARE notable and distinct in subject matter, as well as theoretical framework. Tumacama (talk) 21:48, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

I think you make some good points very well here, and I largely agree. While I would agree about problems with reliability of experimental evidence in psychology (and social sciences more generally), I do have to take issue with the comment that 'Most science accepts statistical significance at 5% p value whereas in psychology it is 10%'. I've taught on one of the UK's largest degree programmes in psychology for 25 years, and I can definitely assert that psychology too as a discipline also holds the significance threshold at 5% (i.e. p-value less than 0.05). There may well be some individual researchers who use a looser threshold, but it's certainly not the threshold experimental psychology generally holds to. Notwithstanding this, there are some serious questions in experimental psychology about the repeatability of apparently 'well established' results, so psychology does have questions to answer. But it's not a p-value of 10%! Apart from this one issue, I thought your points were very well made, and I am pretty much of the same mind. I might add - to develop one of your points further - that the materialist viewpoint that neurological processes which can't be measured today, are assumed to be measurable in some possibly distant future, is itself a faith position. It's remarkably easy for scientists - well everyone really - to end up with a set of beliefs which harden into a fundamentalist religion based on blind faith - rather than science as a method of enquiry, completely open as to outcomes, driven only by evidence. (Of course what counts as 'evidence' is a key epistemological distinction between most transpersonal psychologists and a mainstream materialist scientist). DoctorMartin (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 00:04, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

WikiProject Mysticism

At Wikipedia: WikiProject Council, I have made a proposal for a new WikiProject - WikiProject Mysticism. Since mystical experiences are of interest to transpersonal psychology, I wonder whether any readers of this article would be interested in helping me to start this WikiProject? Vorbee (talk) 16:51, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Definition of transpersonal psychology

According to an article in this website:

        https://psi-encyclopedia.spr.ac.uk

     the British Psychological Society defines transpersonal psychology as "the study of the psychology of spirituality and of those areas of the mind that seek higher meanings, that move beyond the individual ego to access enhanced  wisdom, creativity, unconditional love and 

compassion". The article in the S.P.R. encyclopedia which offers this definition is on Spirit Release Therapy. If anyone thinks adding this definition to the article would improve it (after all, it does come from the British Psychological Society, s/he is welcome to add it somewhere. YTKJ (talk) 18:59, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

I can offer an additional reference for this entry that has usefull perspectives on the practice of transpersonal psychotherapy as it is currently being taught and explored at the Centre for Transpersonal Psychology in the United Kingdom. See:

Wellings, Nigel, and McCormick, Elizabeth Wilde. Transpersonal Psychotherapy, SAGE Publications, 2000. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/fielding/detail.action?docID=1001332. Dnpagano (talk) 02:51, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

FRINGE status not clearly elucidated

Even proponents of this idea must acknowledge that transpersonal psychology is fairly fringe. However, the article as it stands does not acknowledge that. I have therefore tagged the article in the hopes that we can achieve a closer approach to WP:NPOV and not do the reader the disservice of making it appear this idea has received WP:MAINSTREAM acceptance. All help would be appreciated. jps (talk) 12:54, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

In the section Reception, recognition and criticism there was, before this latest revison, a wide array of sources, far from original research, documenting the fringe-status, the skepticism towards, and the criticisms of transpersonal psychology. A large amount of it has now been removed, together with a substantial amount of references from peer-reviewed journals, too extensive to summarize. The section, in its original form, demonstrated clearly that Transpersonal psychology is both a controversial topic and and a discipline on the borders of the mainstream.--Hawol (talk) 10:09, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

If you have a source or two that you think belongs in the article which is not currently here, please let me know. I think most of the sources removed were pretty much in abrogation of WP:FRIND, but I'm happy to be shown to be incorrect. jps (talk) 18:05, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Just a few secondary sources that were originally in the article, but are now removed. All are from journals in the fields of psychology, psychiatry, philosophy, mental health, religion and social work + a few news-sources. However, the context that they referred to is mostly gone, so they are just floating around here instead.

• Sharma, Pulkit; Charak, Ruby & Sharma, Vibha. "Contemporary Perspectives on Spirituality and Mental Health". Indian Journal of Psychological Medicine. 2009 Jan-Jun; 31(1): 16–23.
• Travis, Terry A. Book Forum: Humanistic and Transpersonal Psychology: A Historical and Biographical Sourcebook. Am J Psychiatry 2001;158:667-a-668.
• DeCarvalho, Roy J. "Book Reviews: Donald Moss (Ed.). Humanistic and Transpersonal Psychology: A Historical and Biographical Sourcebook". Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 39(1), 93–94 Winter 2003
• Renner, Walter & Ramalingam, Panch. Self-Evident Spiritual Experience and Empirical Psychology. Journal of the Indian Academy of Applied Psychology, July 2015, Vol. 41, No. 2, 259-271.
• Cowley, Au-Deane S. & Derezotes, David. Transpersonal Psychology and Social Work Education. Journal of Social Work Education, 10437797, Winter, Vol. 30, Issue 1, 1994
• Bidwell, Duane R. Ken Wilber's Transpersonal Psychology: An Introduction and Preliminary Critique. Pastoral Psychology, November 1999, Volume 48, Issue 2, pp 81-90
• Matthews, Charles O. "Psychotherapy and Spirit (Book)". Counseling & Values. Oct99, Vol. 44 Issue 1, p75. 3p.
• Lev, Shoshana. Regression in the Service of Transcendence: Reading Michael Washburn. Human Architecture: Journal of the Sociology of Self-Knowledge, Volume 4, Issue 1 Scholarships of Learning, Article 23
• Coward, Harold. The Ego and the Dynamic Ground by Michael Washburn (book review). Philosophy East and West, Vol. 39, No. 4 (Oct., 1989), pp. 505-507
• Reich, Helmut K. Review Article: Spritual Development: Han F. De Wit's and Stanislav Grofs differing approaches. Zygon, vol. 36, no. 3 (September 2001)
• Humphrey, Caroline. Shadows Along the Spiritual Pathway. Journal of Religion and Health, Vol. 54, No. 6 (December 2015), pp. 2376-2388
• Gaur, Sunil D. Review of Words from the soul: Time, east/west spirituality, and psychotherapeutic narrative. Psychological Studies, Vol 50(1), Jan 2005, 101.
• Keutzer, Carolin S. "Transpersonal Psychotherapy: Reflections on the Genre". Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 1984, Vol. 15, No. 6,868-883, The American Psychological Association
• Scott et al. Religious issues in diagnosis: the V-Code and beyond. Mental Health, Religion & Culture, Volume 6, Number 2, 2003 DOI: 10.1080/1367467021000038200
• Dein, S. Working with patients with religious beliefs. Advances in Psychiatric Treatment (2004) 10: 287-294.
• Milstein, G; Midlarsky, E; Link, B.G.; Raue, P.J. & Bruce, M. "Assessing Problems with Religious Content: A Comparison of Rabbis and Psychologists". Journal of Nervous & Mental Disease. 188(9):608-615, September, 2000
• Milstein, G. "Clergy and Psychiatrists: Opportunities for Expert Dialogue". Psychiatric Times, March 2003, Vol. XX, Issue 3, pp 36-39.
• Bender, E. Clinical & Research News: Psychiatrists Urge More Direct Focus On Patients' Spirituality. Psychiatric News June 18, 2004, Volume 39 Number 12, p. 30. American Psychiatric Association.
• Foulks, E.F. Cultural Variables in Psychiatry. Psychiatric Times, April 2004, Vol. XXI, 5
• Curlin et al. - Religion, Spirituality, and Medicine: Psychiatrists and Other Physicians Differing Observations, Interpretations, and Clinical Approaches. The American Journal of Psychiatry, Volume 164 Issue 12, December, 2007, pp. 1825-1831
• Otterman, Sharon. "Merging Spirituality and Clinical Psychology at Columbia". New York Times, published online August 9, 2012
• Clay, Rebecca A. "A renaissance for humanistic psychology. The field explores new niches while building on its past". APA Monitor on Psychology, Volume 33, No. 8 September 2002.
• Leitner, Larry M.; Guthrie, Leland. "Transpersonal psychology: The big picture." (Book Review). PsycCRITIQUES, Vol 59(25), 2014, American Psychological Association
• Adams, William. Transpersonal Heterophenomenology? Journal of Consciousness Studies, Volume 13, Number 4, 2006, pp. 89-93(5)
• Walach, Harald; Runehov, A.L.C. "The Epistemological Status of Transpersonal Psychology. The Data-Base Argument Revisited". Journal of Consciousness Studies, 1 January 2010, vol. 17, no. 1-1, pp. 145-165(21)
• O’Reilly, Patrick. Transpersonal Psychology. The Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine, Vol.10 (2006).
• Alexander, Gary T. (1980) "William James, the Sick Soul, and the Negative Dimensions of Consciousness: A Partial Critique of Transpersonal Psychology". Journal of the American Academy of Religion, XLVIII(2):191-206
• Gray, Alison J. "Reviews: In Case of Spiritual Emergency: Moving Successfully Through Your Awakening". Psychiatric Bulletin (2012) 36: 360

Best regards!--Hawol (talk) 19:47, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

This is a bit of a laundry list and there is little in the way of annotated consideration of how many of these sources can/should be used. Also, many of these sources are pretty poor. For example, the Journal of Consciousness Studies is pretty far out there as it pertains to things like rigorous scholarship. Same goes for The Journal of Religion and Health which seems to me to be a pocket journal. Of these sources, which two do you think are the best for inclusion? jps (talk) 01:33, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

The Journal of Religion and Health actually published one of the few systematic reviews on Transpersonal Therapies, with Guidelines for Research and Clinical Practice. I forgot to put it on the list.

• Nardini‑Bubols et al. The Altered States of Consciousness in Transpersonal Approach Psychotherapy: Systematic Review and Guidelines for Research and Clinical Practice. Journal of Religion and Health (2019) 58:2175–2194

This is a PubMed Indexed source: J Relig Health. 2019 Dec;58(6):2195. doi: 10.1007/s10943-019-00882-y. PMID: 31309440. However, I'm not gonna push for the inclusion of this source, or any other sources, because, as I said, the context for the sources is mostly gone, and the article needs new text in order to establish background for the possible inclusion of these sources. Best regards! Hawol (talk) 13:59, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

A journal founded by the Blanton-Peale Institute (yes, it's that Peale) is a pretty big WP:REDFLAG as far as I'm concerned. This is a group that is on the fringe end of psychoanalysis. jps (talk) 18:30, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Well, according to Wikipedia and other commentators even Freud is pretty much fringe.--Hawol (talk) 19:28, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Right. This kinda makes the journal "fringe of fringe" at least as it pertains to WP:MAINSTREAM psychology. It's not surprising to me that this is the venue where transpersonal psychology is reviewed. It is probably pretty difficult to get anything published about it in the top-tier academic journals. jps (talk) 19:33, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Sure, I do not expect The Lancet, The New England Journal of Medicine or Nature to take an interest in Transpersonal Psychology. The article therefore, in my view, has to be based on the next best thing, which is mainstream peer-reviewed indexed journals, east and west. Also, Transpersonal psychology has crossed paths with the mainstream. Transpersonal psychologists networked with the American Psychatric Association Comittee on Religion and Psychiatry, as well as the American Psychatric Association Workgroup on Culture and Diagnosis, for the construction of a new diagnostic category, "Religious or Spiritual Problem". The proposal was approved by the Task Force on DSM-IV in 1993 and published the following year (DSM-IV, Code V62.89). Hawol (talk) 21:23, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

I note that the 90s were probably the high-water mark. There does not seem to be any acknowledgement from the mainstream at this point that there is anything worthwhile from transpersonal psychology boosters, at least as far as WP:FRIND is concerned. jps (talk) 12:44, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Fringe-status - current state and future directions

It is now suggested by Wikipedia-editors that Transpersonal psychology is a fringe-discipline, and that this was not clearly elucidated in the article prior to january 18, 2023. The article is now re-edited, by other editors, with this elucidation in mind, keeping most of the clarifications that were already in place. Although I can can appreciate the mid-january edit based on WP-policies and guidelines posted to this Talk (see above), I must note, in all fairness, that except for a few reformulations, no new text is contributed! Including the two sources noting the fringe-status of TP (Hilgard and Adams), the mid-january edit keeps most of the skeptical and critical considerations of transpersonal psychology, even removing a few of them (Alexander, Gray and Schneider). I am familiar with these skeptical and critical sources, as I contributed most of them in the years prior to the latest re-edit.

However, if Transpersonal psychology is now going to be conceptualized and elucidated as a fringe discipline in the mind of the public, which I understand is the consensus of the mid-january revisions, then it would be preferable that this categorization was supported by more sources than the few already in place. As I understand it, the new sources have to be first-rate. I therefore welcome new contributions that can elaborate upon the fringe-status of Transpersonal psychology and its relationship to the world of mainstream psychology. Best regards! --Hawol (talk) 17:47, 28 January 2023 (UTC)--Hawol (talk) 01:16, 28 January 2023 (UTC)