Talk:Counterphobic attitude

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Psychology Mid‑importance 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.

What does it mean that "language could be used by the developing child as a counterphobic object"? And what does it mean that "the concrete meanings of words may break down the counterphobic attitude"? I cannot make heads or tails of that section, and the list of references does not help, because it just lists titles of books, not links to pages that anyone can reach immediately. I'm asking to anyone with the necessary compentence to rewrite the section, so that it will be understood by those who don't have that knowledge already. Devil Master (talk) 22:12, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jeb Corliss (well known base jumper, wingsuit jumper) claims (2013, channel 7 Australia, discussing his Table Mountain accident) that he was diagnosed as a child as being counterphobic. Not sure if worthy of inclusion, but thought I would throw it into the mix. — al-Shimoni (talk) 09:04, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The author is writing about a scientific topic: counterphobia, however, the author's cited references are mostly textbooks, or articles, based only partly on peer-reviewed science. An encyclopedic entry should not be supported by textbooks or similar works of literature, but specifically by peer-reviewed studies that explicitly report data collected using scientific methodologies. Furthermore, some sources cited could be considered works of literature with commercial motivation. For example, the author writes:

"Such a counterphobic approach may indeed be socially celebrated[10] in a postmodern vision of sex as gymnastic performance or hygiene,[11] fuelled by what Ken Wilber described as "an exuberant and fearless shallowness".[12]

The first part of this sentence is an intended scientific statement except the sources cited (10, 11) are non-scientific. You cannot back science without science...that's essentially the exact opposite of how science works.

Actually, you're dead wrong when it comes to Wikipedia. Textbooks are strongly preferred here to primary research papers, which can often be misleading. See WP:SCHOLARSHIP. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 23:11, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The statement that "As well as many other psychological factors, the concept of people wanting to carry out activities that are labelled as 'prohibited', 'not safe for work', or with a 'do not touch this button'-style label is down to a counterphobic attitude" seems to be purely conjecture. Use of the word "psychological factors" in this context is overly vague. Additionally, there is no source supporting the assertion that these behaviors are counterphobic as opposed to oppositional or defiant, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.168.176.11 (talk) 20:06, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The second part of the sentence goes on to cite Ken Wilbur, in an apparent attempt to use Wilber's work to further evidence the logic of the first statement. However, the entire body of Ken Wilber's work has undergone no peer-review process. Using such a reference is therefore not helpful.

Given that there has been extensive academic research on counterphobia, there is no reason to not cite peer-reviewed sources in order to make the entry empirical. 24.10.133.23 (talk) 09:12, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]