Talk:Jean Twenge

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ashleymarie073, Unlikelypolicebeard, Tvenkateswaran2018, Cameronbassir, Delfri, Petemancilla.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:20, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Critique deletion?

An almost-single author user keeps wanting to delete a short critique of Twenge's work. THe critique first appeared in The Atlantic. It quite properly questioned the validity and reliability of Twenge's statements. The deleting User thinks this is too harsh and too vague. By contrast, I think it is a gentle critique that avoids WP:UNDUE but does link interested WP readers to the critiquing article itself. Otherwise, the article reads like WP:PEACOCK. Hence, I have reverted the deletion. Bellagio99 (talk) 20:46, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Psychology is not a science, folks, nor is steretyping generations. At best, latter falls in the domain of marketing, which is also not a science. 192.0.173.10 (talk) 07:27, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Critique deletion

Arnett's published criticism contained numerous falsehoods, as detailed in this article: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2167696812468112 This response of Twenge's could be included, but it seems easier just to delete the vague and non-specific quote with the criticism.  Preceding unsigned comment added by Bethmanning (talkcontribs) 21:18, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

  • I will defer to this article for now, but curious as to what readers of Prof. Twenge's work--and WP page think. PS: May I remind you to sign your Talk comments with 4 tildes. Bellagio99 (talk) 21:46, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
  • I would like to see both the critique and Twenge's response to the critique. Not knowing the critique at all is very different from knowing that the debate exists and that Twenge has a good response to the critique (Bethmanning has argued that Twenge's response is good). Spidana (talk) 15:23, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
  • I agree. I think adding a section on critiques with Twenge's responses are necessary considering how controversial some of her conclusions are. My classmates and I will try and add a section about this. We would also like to add a section summarizing her book iGen in particular. Tvenkateswaran2018 (talk) 14:43, 4 April 2018 (UTC)Tvenkateswaran2018

- In the introduction paragraph, there are a few sentences about her criticisms. Would it make more sense to put that in its own section with additional criticisms and responses? Tvenkateswaran2018 (talk) 14:59, 13 April 2018 (UTC)Tvenkateswaran2018

  • I agree, there should be a separate section for her criticisms from various sources, particularly iGen. --Delfri (talk) 17:18, 16 April 2018 (UTC)delfri

iGen Summary for Consideration

image consideration

List of Books

Related Articles

Wikiwand AI