Contents

Talk:Splitting (psychology)

This article is rated C-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.

Rewrite/edit needed[edit]

I've only read a couple paragraphs of this article and already I see it's badly in need of a rewrite by someone familiar w/MOS. It reads more like a casual conversation than an encyclopedic article, and in some spots the syntax/examples are confusing/unclear, etc. I don't want to take this on because I don't know enough about the subject, but I thought I'd note that it definitely needs doing, especially since it's a very common phenomenon, psychiatrically and anecdotally, and it's a great idea for an entry. Sugarbat (talk) 01:18, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The lede states: "Splitting was first described by Pierre Janet. He initially coined the term splitting in his book L'Automatisme psychologique. Sigmund Freud also worked to explain this idea, and it was later more clearly defined by his daughter Anna Freud." However, from reading this Reader's Guide To Pierre Janet and this article on Janet in a a biographical dictionary of medical eponyms, it appears that by "splitting" (off from consciousness) Janet meant dissociation and not the black-and-white thinking described in this article.  --Lambiam 21:14, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Terrible pun, I know. But I think this article should be split...it refers to two completely different psychological concepts which have little to do with each other. "Splitting of the mind" is the Freudian concept and doesn't really play a role in CBT from what I know of it...whereas the "all-or-none thinking" is. I've seen CBT reference the term dichotomous thinking primarily, and use "all-or-none" thinking in a more casual text (i.e. self-help books). I've rarely seen the term "splitting" used in this way. Thoughts? If no one objects I'll split these and name the new article dichotomous thinking. I'm working on a draft in my userspace: User:Cazort/dichotomous-thinking. Of particular interest in this split is the fact that dichotomous thinking has not just been studied in the context of CBT, but also in a broader context, i.e. see this article: [1], or, perhaps more interesting, this feminist critique of neoclassical economics: [2]. Making a proper page for dichotomous thinking would allow a unified encyclopedic exposition of the topic which is of relevance to far more than just psychology and CBT. Cazort (talk) 22:11, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly oppose: one is a fallacy in philosophy, the other is a defense mechanism in psychology. The fact that they overlap is incidental and it would be very confusing if merged. --Penbat (talk) 15:28, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I concur that though this article and False Dilemma discuss similar topics, I think it would be difficult to effectively merge the two while retaining the distinct and separate applications. Dkevanko (talk) 03:28, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the sections on borderline and narcissistic personality disorders, we find statements like, "These people can suffer from intense fusion anxieties in intimate relationships, because the boundaries between self and other are not firm. A tender moment between self and other could mean the disappearance of the self into the other. ..." I am venturing into areas about which I know very little, this explanation strains my psychobabble-BS meter. (What does the disappearance of self into other mean? Are any people with BPD aware of having this fear?) Can we give some context by attributing these explanations to specific theories and theorists (e.g., "According to xxxx theory, a person with BPD has ill-defined boundaries between self and other...Yyyy has stated that people with BPD avoid tender moments out of a fear of disappearance of the self into the other...Zzzz says <insert some alternate explanation here>...")? My comments here apply also to the many other concepts introduced in the two personality-disorder sections. Peter Chastain (talk) 11:39, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NPD section has been deleted and reverted. Did some research.

Alexander Abdennur's Identified Books

• 2008 The Arab Mind: An Ontology of Abstraction and Concreteness
• 2000 Camouflaged Aggression: The Hidden Threat to Individuals and Organizations
• 1997 The Conflict Resolution Syndrome: Volunteerism, Violence, and Beyond

The book Narcissistic Principle of Equivalence seems to exist [[3]] but is difficult to find. Book is not listed on the author's web page: [[4]]

[in another quote] "Alexander Abdennur writes in his book on narcissistic personality disorder, Camouflaged Aggression, that "through this splitting mechanism, the narcissist can suddenly and radically shift his allegiance. A trusted friend can become an enemy; the partner may become an adversary."

Also similar to Superficial charm so added that to see also. Rick (talk) 02:46, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The quote in the article is indeed from Camouflaged Aggression and on the exact pages cited. I believe the links to the Principle of Equivalence book were autogenerated from the erroneous citation in this wikipedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.231.8.40 (talk) 16:21, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Pg 2: Splitting was developed by Ronald Fairbairn in his formulation of object relations theory
• see Object relations Otto Rank, coiner of the term "pre-Oedipal," was the first to create a modern theory of "object relations" in the late 1920s. It was later independently formulated by Ronald Fairbairn in 1952,[3] but the line of thought being referred to first emerged in 1917, beginning with Ferenczi and, later, Rank.[4] Although first formulated in the 1920s by Otto Rank, object relations theory was extended in the 1940s and 50s by British psychologists Ronald Fairbairn, Melanie Klein, Donald Winnicott, Harry Guntrip, Scott Stuart, and others.Rick (talk) 18:04, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree. The lede gives the highly erroneous impression that Fairborn was the first to develop a theory of splitting. It is my understanding that the concept harks back to Pierre Janet in the 1890s. — Aetheling (talk) 15:55, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree as well. Pierre Janet first brought about the idea of splitting in 1889 however, Taine brought about the idea of ego splitting that Janet went off of in 1878.

—~~~ Sld99 (talk) 17:55, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:False_dilemma#Poor black and white thinking redirect. — MaxEnt 17:10, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Having just read the article for the first time, I was surprised that what purports to be a concept in psychology - and thus inherently testable, measurable and objective - turns out instead to be a construct in psychoanalysisorpsychiatry - and thus not necessarily possessing any of the preceding three characteristics.

Wouldn't it be better to rename the article Splitting (psychoanalysis)?yoyo (talk) 10:37, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is currently the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 May 2024 and 12 August 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sld99 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Rashanmarcus, Mdbutler7, Jpow05, Priyaraymond, Tltuggle18.

— Assignment last updated by Rahneli (talk) 23:41, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Although splitting was described first by Pierre Janet, if the term is coined from another, wouldn’t Taine have been the first to describe a splitting of the ego in 1878? At the time, splitting was used in both ways therefore, he would’ve been the first to have used the term.

—~~~ Sld99 (talk) 18:24, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]