Talk:Sensory processing sensitivity/Archive 1

This section was removed from the main page due to non-encyclopedic content. Please keep all advice off the main page.

Elaine Aron advises:

"Rather than forcing themselves to fit in and be more outgoing, HSPs need to learn to appreciate their sensitivity in less stimulating ways. Developing boundaries for safety and comfort becomes important. If they are sensitive to bright fluorescent lights, chemical odors or certain kinds of people, HSPs need to use their creativity to find ways to avoid such stimuli."^[1] and "Spend at least eight to ten hours per day in bed, whether sleeping or not, plus an extra two hours spent in meditation or other forms of solitude and one hour of outdoor exercise."^[2]

Kathy Moore advises:

"use some form of releasing therapy, such as Yoga therapy; hypnotherapy; energy work of any kind, such as Reiki; Dance; MAP or ACCESS, to 'let go' of stuck emotions, whether yours or someone else's."^[2]

Jim Hallowes of www.HighlySensitivePeople.com advises:

“Take good care of yourself. Learn about this “gift” you have of the trait of high sensitivity. Learn to set healthy boundaries for yourself, also good nutrition and exercise is very important. Because highly sensitive persons process and reflect upon incoming information so deeply, they are more likely to become over stimulated and overwhelmed than Non-HSP and may need alone time. Be aware of this fact and honor it. Make an attempt to slowly and comfortably educate the important people in your life about your trait and temperament. With proper education about this inherited trait of high sensitivity, you will learn to not just cope and deal with your trait but to excel with it!”^[3]

Ted Zeff advises:

It will help the HSP to create a daily routine. Spend at least fifteen minutes in the morning centering yourself through techniques such as meditation, progressive relaxation, listening to a meditation tape or CD, or hatha yoga. Your evening routine should consist of calming endeavors such as reading uplifting books, writing, meditating, taking a bath, or having light discussions. Try not to watch overstimulating or violent television shows or movies in the evening. It’s important to use the senses to calm the HSP’s nervous system. Avoid jarring noises by listening to relaxing background music or white noise, or wearing earplugs. Give yourself or receive a massage on a regular basis. Reduce the time you sit in front of a television set or computer screen. Reduce your use of caffeine by drinking calming herbal teas and a lot of pure water. Try inhaling scents of calming essential oils or incense. Take a mini retreat twice a week and a longer retreat several times a year.^[4]

A healthy diet for the HSP should include lots of organic veggies, fruits, whole grains, and low-fat protein. Reduce your consumption of sugar, preservatives, salt, high-glycemic foods, and processed foods. It’s calming and nurturing for the HSP’s nervous system to eat heavy, warm, moist dishes such as hearty soups and casseroles. The HSP should generally do gentle exercises like walking, yoga, or tai chi and avoid tense environments like overstimulating health clubs or very competitive team sports. It’s best not to work out after 7 P.M. since it may create insomnia for the HSP.^[4]

To create an enjoyable and relaxing work environment for the HSP, try to develop a positive attitude toward your job by creating enjoyable social interactions, helping others and being enthusiastic about your work. If possible, listen to calming background music, gaze at pictures of natural settings and bring flowers and plants to work. If you are sitting all day at work, periodically perform stretches and take short walks. Throughout the day do some slow abdominal breathing and take short meditation breaks. Explore changes in your job schedule such as beginning work later, working from home, or reducing your hours. If you are working in a very stressful job that can’t be modified, examine your beliefs and values as to why you continue to work in a difficult situation. Investigate new job possibilities that are well suited for your sensitivity.^[4] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bwagstaff (talk • contribs) 22:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC).

hsp is a symptom to esp. dah! atheist scientist and literal psychopath moneygrubbers want every idea revolutionized into their pockets of dementia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.89.145.142 (talk) 19:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I would like to completely re-do this article for the reasons I state below...

High Sensitivity does indeed exist, but the definition offered by Dr. Aron and Jim Hallowes is incorrect. Just because you are shy does not mean that you are highly sensitive. A highly sensitive person (HSP) is a person who is in tune with their soul, sprituality, and emotions, and has extra sensory perception. These people have opened up themselves and freed their soul and thus they feel things that others are unable to. Those who are highly sensitive make up a miniscule amount of the population, according to the department of psychiatric and paranormal studies of UCLA, 1 out of every 30,000 people is a highly sensitive person and this comes in varying degrees of sensitivity. Dr. Aron and Jim Hallowes are avidly pushing out false information and benfitting from it, because they are promoting cruises, to buy their books and their tapes, all filled with false information. High sensitivity is such a rare thing that no one really knows about it, and those who are truly highly sensitive don't go around parading it, so therefore these two can get away with their false information and bogus research because no one really knows what they heck they are talking about and they only have their false information to go by. If you want examples of true Highly Ssensitive People go take a look at Jesus christ, Edgar Cayce and Dr. David Viscott.The more renowned and known Highly Sensitive People. Being SHY does NOT make you a Highly Sensitive Person. Dr. Aron and Jim Hallowes are working over people's need to feel special by calling a characteristic everyone has exhibited and labeling it as a desirable trait, thus making it possible for them to make more money. I can't cite any credible sources because there are none, all the research done on HSp has been done with the definition and characteristics that Dr. Aron and Jim Hallowes SAY HSP have. The only credible information on HSP comes from those who are ACTUALLY hsp, which neither Dr. Aron or Jim Hallowes are. UCLA has has done some research on extra sensory perception in their department of psychiatric and paranormal studies, but they focus on the size and activity of the brain and what theat brings about. But again,,, just because you are shy does not mean that you are hsp,,, and on the contrary true Highly sensitive people are very outgoing. Those are my reasons I guess for wanting to change it, and a little bit how I would change it,, if you would like to see how I actually edited the article before and how I would edit it this time around here is what I said...

A highly sensitive person (HSP) is a person who is in tune with their soul, sprituality, and emotions, and has extra sensory perception. These people have opened up themselves and freed their soul and thus they feel things that others are unable to. Those who are highly sensitive make up a miniscule amount of the population, according to the department of psychiatric and paranormal studies of UCLA, 1 out of every 30,000 people is a highly sensitive person and this comes in varying degrees of sensitivity. They may find that they are able to read those around them simply by looking into their eyes, they are able to feel the emotions and thoughts of others around them, and they feel compelled to help those they come into contact with. Such people commonly will come off as wise and very familiar to those they interact with. They cannot tell the future or speak with the dead and they do not claim to be able to perform such things, they are simply people who feel every emotion at a higher and more profound degree than most, they have opened their minds and souls allowing them to feel what others supress and hide in themselves. High Sensitivity is not an inherited trait for it is a matter of setting ones soul free and becoming in tune with ones self.

The term highly sensitive person was coined and incorrectly defined as one who is simply shy, by Dr. Elaine N. Aron in 1996, and because of the incorreect definition given by Dr. Elaine N. Aron and Jim Hollowes the name is gaining popularity it is taking a characteristic which every single person on this earth is going to experience at least once in their lifetime and then labeling that behavior with a name that makes them feel special. By presenting High Sensitivity as simply someone who is shy, Dr. Elain N. Aron and her crony Jim Hallowes are making roughly over $200,000 between the two by playing on the minds and feelings of low self-esteem individuals. Their method of choice is to name drop celebrities to make their audience feel even more special, and after they have given their audience a sufficient ego boost they will encourage the audience to go on one of their many cruises, buy their books, and buy their tapes. They are using simple and easy salesman techniques, but they are lacking in their salespitch for they repeat the same Incorrect information over and over and over and are quite boring and seemingly unenthusiastic in their over rehearsed speeches.

True examples of Highly Sensitive People would be Jesus Christ, Edgar Cayce, and Dr. David Viscott. Attributes and characteristics Highly Sensitive People enjoy their alone time, and solitude. Dr. David Viscott explains this thought in his book Finding Your Strength in Difficult Times, "When you have found yourself, being alone is a privilege, not a punishment... Your creations and inventions, your solutions to the problems that most vex you, all come to you in isolation. It is only when you are by yourself that you can be receptive to the stillness of your inner voice... This solitude is the place from which your originality and specialness issue... Learn to love being with yourself. It is the highest place to which you can aspire." While highly sensitive people enjoy being alone, they are not shy in the least. On the contrary highly sensitive people are very outgoing and personable, should they chose to go out. Highly Sensitive People feel this deep need and desire to help those around them. You will often find Highly Sensitive People working in a field such as Teaching, Counceling, or Psychology... a field in which they can help and positively advance people's development.

If someone has any problem with what I have put here, feel free to say something, otherwise I would really like to correct this article.Cool ray man 21:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I strongly object. Your rewrite is unsourced, heavily biased, not cross referenced, and factually deficient. If you have additional citations, please add the detail along with them. If you have additional source material, please expand the article and reference it. But please don't just rewrite a growing article to fit your personal bias. That particular rewrite would likely be reverted as vandalism by those who regularly patrol WP. --Bwagstaff 07:09, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that high sensitivity has nothing to do with shyness - in a primary sense. Shyness seems imho to be a secondary thing.

But apart from that, this proposition doesn't sound too much objective, imho. Alrik Fassbauer (talk) 14:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• SORRY, BUTTING IN! IM A TOTTALLY DIFFERENT PERSON XD*

I am highly sensitive and I actually heard that 20% of the population are too. So Its not rare! Is it? All I know is that It definatley cant be rare because my school has around 900 people in it. Around 35 people in it are really highly sensitive and lots of other people who havent seeked help from any techers could be highly sensitive aswell! I am guessing that in my school (which is a completely normal, avarge High school) there are around 200 other people who are highly sensitive. So I dot think that I am a total weirdo for being highly sensitive. But I do wish I wasnt. :( —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.151.241.247 (talk) 16:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I am a highly sensitive person also. I know this because my nervous system has been tested by multiple doctors and determined to be highly sensitive. One problem I have encountered more than once in the work place is that people have labeled me "not a team player," because I work better by myself, in quiet conditions. I am also not one to hang around the water cooler, gossiping about everybody else, and I think some people resent that. However, I don't let this bother me, because people who do know me also know that I do care very deeply about the people in my life, and that I do look out for them when they need my help. I also understand that many corporate environments are filled with narcissistic and/or sociopathic personalities who have no problem with stomping on others in order to get ahead. This is something I personally have vowed never to do, and my career has suffered a little for it. But at the end of the day, I can look in the mirror and still love me.  ;-) 199.173.225.25 (talk) 19:42, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I must say that I've never understood this "shyness" stuff. It always appeared to be very unrelated in my eyes. I'm within one of the biggest German-language online communities, and shyness was *never* part f being "highly sensitive". In fact, "shyness" is in my eyes rather a character trait than it is something that has to do with "sensitivity". In the mentioned community there are all sorts of people - shy, non-shy, extrovert, introvert - even HSS ("high sensation seekers") ... Everything's there.

"High sensitivity" is to me something which I describe as "a lack of being able to filter out sensoric stimuli". I think that's it. The basis. Everything else is developed person-specific in the person which has this "lack of filtering". Alrik Fassbauer (talk) 15:48, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

This subject seems to me as an original research I have barely found any other references on the Web apart from the Author Aron Elain herself ? so does it really belong here ? as WP is to ban original research ? --Khalid hassani 12:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

No, it is not original research, just ongoing research. However, the term HSP is relatively new. Pavlov's work on conditioning to pain and extreme stimuli found a broad range of sensitivity with a few clusters. Jung and contemporaries used Pavlov's work when differentiating between introverted and extroverted cognitive types (not personality types). As the introverted and extroverted cognitive types have become polluted with the introverted and extroverted personality type terms used in popular culture, new and more accurate terms are being developed. Dr. Aron's description is one of the more popular descriptions of the trait since it has a positive 'spin', unlike names like "cognitiave or emotional hypersensitivity" which may have a negative social stigma. Clinicians and academics are rapidly adopting this new descriptive name. ~ Bwagstaff 05:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think one article is enough to merit an inclusion in WP, even if it's a peer-reviewed one. This is an encyclopaedia, not arxiv 62.30.197.24 12:29, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not advocating deletion or anything, but it is improper to say that Elaine Aron 'coined' the term. It is a stock descriptive phrase in use since 1934, at very least. Rather, the article's maintainers should explain the distinct meaning that 'highly sensitive person' has (ie, beyond the obvious) within the context of [insert name of subfield of psychology/sociology here]. --- 14:49, 14 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.49.44.11 (talk)

You beat me to it. I came here to say just this. This is not a new term. Viriditas (talk) 12:48, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

What I still miss is an article about the phenomenon of high sensitivity per se / as such. What we have here is an article on highly sensitive persons, and tht's people, not the trait as such. Alrik Fassbauer (talk) 16:01, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

HSP's are something that I have quite a bit of experience, and I have read several of Dr. Aron's books. This page is something that I plan on expanding when I have time (in about 2 weeks) when I get back into the country.  :) Sonrisasgrandes 18:09, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

What we really need is for a few experts and graduate students to go over this. I have modified the tag from 'expand' to 'expert', and sent out a few requests to experts for additional information and citations in clinical publications. Please feel free to ask around for additional expert information. Bwagstaff 05:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

"Dr. Aron's books cite studies involving other animals"... Would somebody with these books please include the citations? Seeing work other than the over-mentioned Dr. Aron would help with both verifiability and original research claims. ~ Bwagstaff 04:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The pdf I added provides a reference to Wilson, D. S., Coleman, K., Clark, A. B., & Biederman, L. (1993). Shy-bold continuum in pumpkinseed sunfish (Lepomis gibbosus): An ecological study of a psychological trait. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 107, 250-260. This might seem quite far fetched (to extrapolate from some fishes to all species), but I found that the expression "Shy-bold continuum" is very often used, in many contexts, with many species (as far as I can tell). I'll try to include this in the article. Any comments? Pierre-Alain Gouanvic 04:55, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I propose a new category, as #4, for Highly Sensitive Person, at

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highly_sensitive_person

A number of books have been written on the topic of helping HSPs who are also empaths. The emerging field of developing skills for empaths works with a subset of Highly Sensitive Persons. In "Empowered by Empathy,"1 the first book published in English for empaths, Rosetree finds that 1 in 20 persons (1 in 4 HSPs) are also empaths.

In "Become The Most Important Person in the Room," another book for HSPs who are also empaths, Rosetree delineates 12 different gifts for special sensitivity, any one of which would qualify a person as being an empath. "Whatever the gift," she writes, "an empath has a gift for directly experiencing what it is like to be someone else."2

Other popular books for empaths include Dancers Between Realms-Empath Energy, Beyond Empathy by Elisabeth Y. Fitzhugh; Emotional Freedom: Liberate Yourself from Negative Emotions and Transform Your Life by Judith Orloff; and Becoming an Empath by Karla McLaren

Discussion of empath abilities in their own right has been documented with a trademark at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office for the system of Empath EmpowermentTM by Rose Rosetree.

It has been discussed in full-page media articles (or longer) including: "Auras, Cords of Attachments, and Empaths – an Interview with Rose Rosetree" in After Dark Magazine, September 2010 "From Bitter to Bliss" in the Chicago Sun-Times, November 27, 2006 "Eye for Reading People's Faces" in The Washington Times, February 8, 2001

and radio interviews, including: "Insight Beyond Sight with Cheryl Anne," May 11, 2010, http://www.psychicenterprises.com/archived-shows/  "Conscious Talk Radio" with Rob Spears and Brenda Michaels, April 12, 2010, archived at www.conscioustalk.net On January 13, 2011, a Google search on "empath" + "radio interview" has over 2,000 hits. And a Google search on "empath" has 391,000 hits

Websites that attempt to assist HSPs who are also empaths include a quiz for HSPs and empaths at "Empathic Perspectives"3, "Hypersensitivity: What Does it Mean to be Hypersensitive?" by Philomena lila Desy at www.about.com4. "True Empath Empowerment vs. Strong Boundaries" article by Rose Rosetree5 "The Empath Connection" blog by Dr. Michael R. Smith6

There is another researcher on the highly sensitive trait, David Ritchey who has written a highly detailed book describing the trait. He calls HSP's t Anomalously Sensitive People, which may be why many people have not heard of his work. He discusses the Geschwind Theory which has helped him correlate many traits and conditions of the highly sensitive from genetic conditions to psychic and creative gifts. He cover the whole range of high sensitivity which is one of the reasons I thin his ork is so valuable. You can learn more here: Left-handedness, Genetic Disorders and Highly Sensitive People. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soccrates (talk • contribs) 22:54, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

References (Wikipedia likes these, apparently, for credibility) 1. "Empowered by Empathy" by Rose Rosetree. First edition, Women's Intuition Worldwide, Sterling, VA, 2001. Subsequent editions, including audiobook now in print. Japanese edition of "Empowered by Empathy" published by VOICE in 2005. Russian rights purchased by Astrel in 2005. Turkish edition published by Prestij in 2008. Spanish edition published by Editorial Sirio in 2010. 2. Page 16, "Become The Most Important Person in the Room: Your 30-Day Plan for Empath Empowerment." First edition, . First edition, Women's Intuition Worldwide, Sterling, VA, 2001. 3. http://empathicperspectives.blogspot.com/p/empath-q-a.html 4. http://healing.about.com/od/empathic/a/hsp.htm 5. http://www.rose-rosetree.com/blog/2008/09/13/empath-boundary-protection/ 6. http://imaginewellness.blogspot.com/ JSchroedl (talk) 23:51, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Women's intuition? Do tell! Ye gods, With the proliferation of ebooks it appears that pseudoscience is on the way to overwhelming science in the wiki realm. Whereas there was formerly some degree of credibility attached to books due to the editing process, that credibility is now gone and unless some lines are drawn in the sand, wikipedia will become a reiki master's dream come true.QuintBy (talk) 20:19, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Shouldn't a section like this be critical of the idea of there being HSPs? Nearly everyone dislikes people with certain personalities for whatever reason. (remark made by User:Tezero 23:59, 28 February 2013‎ and moved to the talk page by Lova Falk talk 14:18, 1 March 2013 (UTC))

There seems to be a consensus in these last two sections that this article needs to take into account wider mainstream psychology. I don't have time to do this myself, but I have added a {{[[Template:Fringe theories|fringe theories}} template to the page indicating that it's a serious problem with the article.--Genandrar (talk) 22:14, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Definitely not a fringe theory if you read "Counselling skills and theory, 4th Edition, 2014:92-94). ^[1]

Margaret Hough describes Projective Identification as:

In the context of therapy, projective identification is manifest in a particular way, though its underlying motivation is unconscious. A client may, for example, project on to the counsellor a feeling, or constellation of feelings that cannot be expressed through language because they occurred at a primitive developmental stage of life. Furthermore, these client experiences originate from a time when boundaries between self and others were not discernible, but blurred. As a result, the counsellor will experience the projected aspects of the client, and may even feel a sense of being 'controlled' by the client. What then are the feelings a counsellor may experience in relation to a client when projective identification is a prominent dynamic in the relationship? In fact these feelings encompass an infinite variety, but may include the following:

• sadness
• fatigue
• disinterest
• dullness
• confusion
• anger

The next case study indicates one counsellors experience of projective identification.

(information about fictitious clients' circumstances)

During counselling sessions, Kylie (the client) smiled a lot and said she believed in being upbeat and confident. It was just that she was having difficulty in concentrating on her college work.The counsellor (Aisling) was puzzled by her own feelings of fatigue, which she thought were incongruous considering Kylies cheerful demeanour. In supervision Aisling discussed her experience, and the supervisor advised her to stay with the feeling of tiredness, in order to identify its meaning. .....

In supervision, Aisling was able to identify exactly when the debilitating feeling of tiredness left her. It was during Kylies cathartic reminiscences about the early traumatic events she had endured. The counsellor had been able to hold on to the extreme tiredness until the client brought it into conscious awareness and experienced it. Projective identification is therefore a special form of communication, in which aspects of the clients' inner world are actually 'felt' by the counsellor.

This demonstrates that one person can be aware of the emotions of another, in other words, the counsellor as a HSP.

Oldgraybeard (talk) 17:08, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

This whole HSP-Thing sounds like bogus. Jungian Science? This claim of some different kind of neuro structure? Is there any objective experimental evidence for thios claim of HSP beeing "more observant" (which would easily be testable). And 20% od the population? It seems to be rather a new name for just normal people who just fall on the more "shy" side of the normal spectrum. Apart from Aron Elain there seems to be almost nobody interestested in doing any research on this matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.129.44.150 (talk) 18:09, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi 93.129.44.150! The Talk page is for discussing the article, not the subject of the article. In what way would you like to improve the article? Lova Falk talk 18:34, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

It's definitely not bogus, and if anything, interest is surging. Aron has said that Susan Cain's concept of introverts in her 2012 bestseller Quiet: The Power of Introverts in a World That Can't Stop Talking is in fact the same as HSPs. See:

• Aron, Elaine N., Ph.D, "Understanding the Highly Sensitivity Person: Sensitive, Introverted, or Both? | Extraverted HSPs face unique challenges" (WebCite archive), Psychology Today, July 21, 2011.
• Aron, Elaine N., Ph.D, "Time Magazine: "The Power of (Shyness)" and High Sensitivity" | ... Quiet describes HSPs (WebCite archive), Psychology Today, February 2, 2012.
• See also the paragraph added to then-line-116 of Quiet:... in this edit.

This HSP article should definitely stay. RCraig09 (talk) 18:53, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

If the article is part and parcel with the content, then I say the content is an appropriate thing to discuss. I would characterize myself as a highly sensitive person, but like many people who are that way, it is consequent to a brain injury. The pop version of HSP contained in this article is so interested in keeping pathology detached from it that it effectively builds-in the characteristic as one innate from conception, leaving no room for trauma or brain injury to be the cause. The equation here is HSP=Good; HSP caused by something bad = 0. — Preceding unsigned comment added by QuintBy (talk • contribs) 20:08, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I would agree that this seems to be, if not bogus, then at least not very good science. And this not-so-good science is now being pumped for all it's worth in self-help books.

Let's take as a measure of HSP being a useful/not useful concept in psychology, the number of citations of the original article (Aron & Aron, 1997)^[1]. It has 170 citations. That's not very good for a paper that's supposed to be the prime source of diagnosis for something that affects 15% of the population. For comparison, a different article by the same authors where they create a scale prediciting whether a romantic relationship will last or not has over 1400 citations.

Let's also look at that original article, which is the basis for claiming that the HSP scale/test has discriminant validity. When you look at the demographics of the samples used, nearly all (6 out of 7) of the studies were performed on undergraduate psychology students. That's a very narrow part of the population, and one that is very likely to be more emotional/sensitive than the average person. Who isn't emotional when they've just moved away from home/started university? Furthermore, women are grossly overrepresented in these samples, and it's fairly well established that women are more emotional/sensitive than men.

I think my musings above are a good starting point for a thorough criticism part of this article. AsmundErvik (talk) 23:01, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I thought I'd respond to the criticism of the HSP concept that's been written above. On the 29th January 2013, somebody wrote that high sensitivity seems to be a new name for normal people who fall on the more shy side of the normal spectrum. Shyness, as Susan Cain has mentioned, is avoiding social interaction due to a fear of social judgment, whereas high sensitivity (one aspect of it) is avoiding social interaction to prevent overstimulation.

QuintBy, on the 8th January 2014, wrote that his/her high sensitivity, like many people, is the result of a brain injury. While I do not wish to write off his/her experiences, it would be interesting to know how he/she can know for sure that brain injury was the cause for his/her sensitivity. Secondly, as far as I know, there is no evidence pointing to brain injury being the cause for high sensitivity in anyone, let alone many people.

On the 27th January 2014, AsmundErvik expressed an opinion that the HSP concept is not very good science, but then went on to talk as if this opinion is the objective truth. He/she uses the fact that Elaine and Arthur Aron's original article has far fewer citations than another one of their articles to show that the HSP concept is not very good science, but less evidence does not necessarily mean that a concept is invalid by default. It could be that there is less evidence in the original article compared with the other one because high sensitivity as a topic is far less popular among academics. The user used the words 'daignosis' and 'affects' in identifying high processing sensitivity, and this makes it sound like a disorder, when the reality is that if it's something 15-20% of any given population have in common, that's far too many people for it to be a disorder. Secondly, many of Aron's studies may well have been carried out on psychology students, but I feel that what's important is that they saw themselves as highly sensitive, not the fact that they were psychology students, since psychology students are ultimately individuals rather than a unified collective mass. Thirdly, the terms 'emotional' and 'highly sensitive' should not be used as if they are synonymous because there is more to being highly sensitive than just being emotional. For example, highly sensitive people tend to underperform when being watched and find it very difficult to concentrate in environments that are very noisy. These two hallmarks have absolutely nothing to do with being emotionally unstable. The said hallmarks are true for me, and not only that, but I answered 'true' for all of the items in Elaine Aron's self-test. Fourthly, there should not be an assumption made that Elaine Aron's participants had just moved away from home and started university. It is likely that some of them commuted and/or were in the advanced stages of their courses. Even if some of them had just moved away and started their courses, Elaine Aron would have had to control for these factors because the effects of moving away and starting a course are not what her test is intended to measure. Fifthly, it's brought to our attention that there were more women participants in Elaine Aron's studies, but is this a massive issue since a lot of what we perceive to be massive differences between the sexes are merely societal constructs? I wonder about that one. Lastly, it's mentioned that it's well established that women are more emotional/sensitive than men, but there is no evidence offered that this is indeed the case, and like I said earlier, the terms 'emotional' and 'highly sensitive' are not synonymous.

One final point I want to raise is that the user Tezero, on the 28th February 2013, requested that there should be a criticism section where the HSP personality type is criticised. Why this person really wants this to happen is unclear, but there was a criticism section at one time, and this has gone now for some reason. In that section, it wasn't the HSP concept that was criticised, but rather the personality type by referring to the words of Jeffrey E. Young, an academic. Anyway, I just wanted to bring that up.

I've been interested in the HSP concept for quite some time now since I took Elaine Aron's self-test and found that I have each one of the hallmarks she outlines. I'm planning on making contact with a couple of my psychology lecturers at the university I used to go to to see what thoughts they have on the HSP concept with regards to its validity. I'm hoping they'll tell me that it is a valid concept, but I wouldn't be too downhearted if they told me there's a lot of criticism surrounding it because although I feel it's helped me make sense of who I am as a person, I think it's important to aim for the truth with regards to the causes of human behaviour. If anybody would like to reply to me then please feel free, but I may not see your response for some time. Thanks. Jack.w.p.reynolds (talk) 17:20, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

If you compare the characteristics of a HSP with the criteria used to define Projective Identification then you'll see significant similarities. It's just that nobody seems to have made an association between the two. Please see my comment in the "Criticism" section.

Oldgraybeard (talk) 17:24, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

there's very little information about what she did to get her 'numbers', and the experiment she did was on under-graduate students. that's a strange thing to base an entire diagnosis on. I do agree that the experience of being what's called a HSP exists, but not that it exists as a state or 'born' condition in a person. Far too little research has been done on this. It's typically related to self help books and people like hypnotists and motivational consultants. I think this is more a term for a vague collection of personality traits than some kind of 'different human'. I mean, there's enough evidence to suggest these traits exist, but no evidence at all given to the fact that this is something to do with anything other than learned behavior and varying levels of sensitivity. In contrast, an autistic person has a different brain structure, a dyslexic person's brain works differently in specific areas. She sells self help books too, and I guess for me I want my independent researcher to be primarily a researcher and psychologist, rather than primarily an author, who really really sells her 'theory'/books. + There doesn't seem to be any interest at all anywhere else in science or psychology for her discoveries here. No one else is picking it up or considering it as anything from what I can see. Her and her husband seem to have come up with a way to list a set of personality traits which at random appear in 20% of the population, (not even sure how they got those figures seeing as they only tested under-graduates (which is a very specific demographic)). I don't think this is fact based enough to have a place in an Encyclopedia.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.97.237.14 (talk) 23:33, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

There is a fair bit of reasonable objection in this discussion page to what appears to be a pretty evidence-free notion. I though it might be useful to mention a recent piece of research:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25161824

HSP does seem to have been a vehicle for the promotion of self-help books, but it also appears that it is a genuine phenomenon.

Aron EN cited as an author of the paper is none other than the author of the self-help books herself. Jerodlycett (talk) 11:46, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Part of the issue is that it's a just a string of words - a general term, and so it may appear in many different papers without the attended meaning this article is assigning to it (in fact going through the current sources I can see some examples of this, particularly one using the term "highly sensitivity personality" which is probably entirely unrelated).

This article strikes me as WP:PROMO and strongly tainted by WP:OR. I suspect it should be put up for deletion.

Also, be wary of pubmed, as they're a post-publication "peer review" site (meaning the "review" is done on a web 2.0 system AFTER it's published on the website). So it may not be the most reliable source. --Jobrot (talk) 10:52, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Pubmed is not a publisher or journal. It is _the_ meta-database for published life science papers. It recently introduced an option for post pub commentary by scientists, but that's on top of whatever (pre-pub) reviewing scheme a paper went through originally. 90.196.191.37 (talk) 00:00, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

DIFFERENT PERSON----

Hi, I've never edited wikipedia before but I study high sensitivity and found myself here. I wanted to share newer research (about genetic predisposition) by Dr. Aron to see if the WP folks could add it as you see fit. http://reset.me/story/highly-sensitive-person-need-know-science-personality-type/ Also this mentions research by others: http://hsperson.com/faq/evidence-for-does/

There is a lot of misinformation about high sensitivity, much of it due to people's preconceived notions of the word "sensitive". It is not shyness, social anxiety, introversion, extra sensory perception, or emotional instability.

The idea that Dr. Elaine Aron is doing everything as "self promotion" is laughable if you have ever heard her speak or read much of her writings. She's the opposite of a self-promoter. She almost never does interviews, admits that she makes it difficult for people to contact her, and at her documentary premiere, admitted how being in the limelight was not comfortable. There is no sneaky ulterior motive to her work as some seem to have implied.

Lastly, Dr. Aron has admitted herself that the phrase "Highly sensitive person" isn't the greatest way to explain this trait--but it's the best she could come up with at the time.

Jobrot urges moving this article to a new SPS article, or merging it with Sensitivity (human). For the record, here's why it should not be moved or merged:

(a) "Sensory processing sensitivity." As already stated in the AfD, Wikipedia:Article titles#Deciding on an article title states that the title should be "one that readers are likely to look or search for, and Wikipedia:Article titles#Use commonly recognizable names states that "Wikipedia generally prefers the name that is most commonly used." Obviously, the commonly used term Highly sensitive person (with >900 views/day) is what readers search for—not the scientific term "sensory processing sensitivity" which didn't even have a re-direct until I made one in January 2016.

(b) "Sensitivity (human)." The AfD's closing advised editors to consider merging with Sensitivity (human). I have. Merging HSP into Sensitivity (human) is wrong for at least two reasons:

(b1) Sensitivity (human) is too broad because HSP is defined specifically in terms of Sensory Processing Sensitivity and not other types of sensitivity humans have; and, conversely,

(b2) Sensitivity (human) is also too narrow for the term Highly Sensitive Person because of the observation of SPS in >100 non-human species.

Absent changes in the above facts, the article should stay where it is. —RCraig09 (talk) 14:06, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

• I think we should get the promotional material out and then reevaluate. It's hard to know what makes the most sense as it stands right now. There's also an article on the book already and some of this might belong in there. That is probably the better landing page for people interested in "highly sensitive person." Some people may actually be interested in learning more about the academic views on SPS as opposed to pop psych and mainstream media views on HSP, in which case the current version of this article would be frustratingly unhelpful and it doesn't accurately reflect the mainstream view in the field, which seems to do everything it can to avoid using the phrase "highly sensitive person", for one thing. —PermStrump(talk) 06:44, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Observation: Unfortunately the book was published two decades ago, and the references and most research occur after that, so it's difficult to throw material to the book's article. The balancing I describe in the following section seems necessary. —RCraig09 (talk) 02:02, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

RCraig09, when you you reverted my recent edit, you wrote in the edit summary, "'Consistently' was in Booth reference only; Boterberg and Liss focused on 3 *sub-components* of HSPScale, and not all those life results were negative." However, this is the conclusion paragraph from Boterberg and Liss's paper:

In sum, the current exploratory study provided the first evidence for a two-factor structure of the 23-item parent-report HSPS for children, together with the absence of a clear cut point. High SPS was associated with more internalizing and probably also less externalizing problems. The first factor OS was associated with excessive crying as a baby, more medically unexplained physical symptoms (MUPS), more sleeping, eating, and drinking problems while the second factor DP was associated with more MUPS and more sleeping problems. Hence, OS seems to be associated with more problems in the daily functioning compared to DP.

One factor displayed more problems than the other, but both displayed problems. What's more, 2 additional sources papers by independent reliable source (Liss et al., 2008 and Booth et al., 2015) summarized the existing research in similar ways said:

• Although research on this construct is somewhat limited, several studies have suggested that sensory processing sensitivity is associated with negative clinical outcomes. It has been found to be related to social phobia (Neal, Edelmann, & Glachan, 2002), avoidant personality disorder (Meyer & Carver, 2000), anxiety and depression (Liss, Timmel, Baxley, & Killingsworth, 2005), perceived stress and ill-health (Benham, 2006), and agoraphobic avoidance (Hofmann & Bitran, 2007)... In much of her popular literature, Elaine Aron (1996) discusses the advantages of being a highly sensitive person. From the present analyses, it appears that many of these advantages are associated with AES, rather than with EOE or LST. Whether an individual who is high in AES is physiologically a highly sensitive person who has learned to cope with their sensitivity appropriately has not been investigated. —Liss et al. (2008)
• It is important to note, however, that SPS has been consistently associated with negative outcomes (Ahadi & Basharpoor, 2010; Aron & Aron, 1997; Aron et al., 2005; Liss et al., 2005)... However, it should be noted that SPS has been consistently related to lower wellbeing... —Booth et al. (2015) (my emphasis)

Yes, only one source used the exact word "consistently", but it's more recent than Liss et al. by 6 years. Anyway, we don't remove reliably sourced content that reflects mainstream views just because there isn't identical wording in every other source, especially material from one of the more reliable sources that exists on this topic. It offers needed context to an article that's otherwise sourced to the primary findings of someone with a direct conflict of interest. —PermStrump(talk) 08:33, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, PermStrump, for your (much-welcomed) source-based reasoning. I appreciate the dilemma, when mainstream popular psychology's emphasis (decidedly recognizing Aron as an authority) differs from mainstream scholarly emphasis (more divergent, of course). I have limited time-per-day to work on WP, so, in brief: I hope you preserve in this article the idea that high SPS is "an amplifier of an environment's effects" (source)--both negative and positive--as supported by Aron herself and in the references in the final paragraph of the present "Related concepts" section: Belski 2009, Pluess 2009 and 2010 and 2013. —RCraig09 (talk) 10:39, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Quick question: is your "direct COI" with E. Aron simply because she markets books/videos/workshops? Or is it because of a journal-by-journal analysis of each reference? —RCraig09 (talk) 10:39, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

That time I was referring to her blatant (not "simple") COI as having written books and currently selling related merchandise on her website. Also as a self-described "HSP" she's too close to the topic to be objective. The fact that she's overly positive about the outcomes means little because of her deep association with the topic. For those kinds of statements we need to use the independent sources. —PermStrump(talk) 10:50, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't find Aron's work was "overly" positive about outcomes; rather, her public emphasis has been on overcoming the dominant cultural perception that sensitivity is ~uniformly a negative trait. In that sense, she has been trying to balance public perception (source linked above), and I think that should be reflected in this article, in context. It's great you're finding pertinent content from non-Aron articles, as my Jan-Feb overhaul began by re-organizing content from previously cited references. —RCraig09 (talk) 13:03, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

COI is pretty cut and dry. I get what you're saying and that that's what she says she's trying to do. Regardless, it's better to cite the independent reliable sources, because when we cite her, it has to be clearly contextualized as coming from someone with a COI. It's also a major WP:BALANCE issue. —PermStrump(talk) 16:27, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for hiatus. Of course I agree about avoiding or at least pointing out COI, placing assertions in context, and maintaining wp:Balance. In the little time I could spend here recently, I find that a many of the non-Aron scholarly sources are themselves wp:primary-ish for what they're cited for (like your Boterberg and Liss discoveries), indicating the field is a relatively young one. Lay sources seem to uniformly follow Aron as a, if not the, authority. But definitely, it's wrong to portray Aron as saying "SPS is good" and the mainstream saying "SPS is bad": the backbone of Aron's work has been that SPS is both a blessing and a curse (my words) but that as a clinical psychologist Aron is acknowledging its many difficulties but emphasizing positive aspects to overcome Psychology's traditional inclination to find something wrong and "cure" it, and in her popular publications to overcome society's stigmatization of the sensitive. As the article is about the term(s) she initially propounded, her reasoning must be included, in context—a difficult balancing act. —RCraig09 (talk) 01:54, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

As a corollary: references that show SPS is "related to" negative outcomes actually support the validity of the HSPScale, even if only to predict or explain those outcomes. —RCraig09 (talk) 14:54, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

This may come as a great shock; but I actually agree with the sentiment you're expressing above. I personally would love it if psychological conditions were less stigmatized, and if the industry as a whole focused less on finding something wrong and "curing" it (as you say). Aims which are somewhat reminiscent of Schizoanalysis. However, Aron's ideals and Wikipedia's vary greatly on this issue. I believe it is up to psychologists to fix the issues with their industry, and it's up to Wikipedia (unfortunately) to reflect the WP:DUE viewpoint of that industry. Complete with its desire towards harder data, better diagnostics, evidence and scientific consensus. It is unfortunate, but Aron's desire to change the industry and the world's view of psychology and sensitivity is NOT going to start here on Wikipedia, and the article must be made as rigorous as policy requires. Her mission is hers, ours is ours. --Jobrot (talk) 13:07, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Just leaving a comment here to gauge how other editors would feel about swapping this article with the Sensory Processing Sensitivity article (which currently redirects here) and putting a neurology portal template on it rather than psychology. It would essentially just swap the names, but I believe this would distance the article from some of the WP:PROMO traits of Aron's therapeutic work (the horse retreats, agreeable esoteric movies, online self-tests ect..) What do others think? --Jobrot (talk) 14:35, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Discussion already began above, at Talk:Highly sensitive person#Reasons_not_to_move_or_merge_this_article. There, paragraph (a) is most relevant. —RCraig09 (talk) 15:34, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks --Jobrot (talk) 01:31, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

- Seems pretty straight forwards to me:

"When there are multiple names for a subject, all of them fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others." -WP:COMMONNAME --Jobrot (talk) 01:31, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

One page will direct to the other either way, however this article is currently under clean up; and I think the more scientific attention and expertise we can shed on the article the better for WP:RS. The topic is being claims by Aron as having a 'scientific name'; so I see no problem with the name change. --Jobrot (talk) 01:31, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm undecided, because I don't really like any of the options. I'm going to think "aloud" a bit about other potential options... I don't think it makes sense to move this to a BLP about Elaine Aron, because she's only notable for this one thing, so wouldn't pass WP:BLPN, or WP:ACADEMIC, because I've seen no verifiable evidence that she was a professor anywhere other than Maharishi University (see Transcendental Meditation movement) in the 70s. Are there any other options? I feel like Sensory processing sensitivity will still just be an WP:ADMASQ (ad masquerading as content). FWIW I elaborated more on similar issues at WP:RSN#Take 2 earlier tonight. —PermStrump(talk) 03:31, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I've seen no verifiable evidence that she was a professor anywhere other than Maharishi University (see Transcendental Meditation movement) in the 70s. - Wow thanks User:Permstrump, that's disturbing, just went back and saw that you mentioned this earlier at the fringe notice boards discussion. On another note I don't think there's any indication that Arthur Aron has any background in Neurology, so I'm not sure how the claim that "SPS is the 'science term' for HSP" is being sourced other than as a claim Wikipedia is making. It's not a claim I can find written in those first two sources on the page. --Jobrot (talk) 03:50, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

(sigh, another tangent, more misunderstandings) As initial propounder of the terms, Aron can define them. One more time: an HSP is a person with high SPS, the latter term being used in hundreds of scientific journal articles citing Aron's work. And it was either you or Permstrump who deleted the sourcing in the lead for Aron's definitions! Primary sourcing to a term's originator is reliable for definitions of the term. In addition, Boterberg 2016 writes "The terms “hypersensitivity” or “highly sensitive”, which are popular synonyms for the scientific concept of SPS, are increasingly used in psychological practice." —RCraig09 (talk) 04:46, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Primary sourcing to a term's originator is reliable for definitions of the term I'm not aware of any policy that says that but am open to correction; as far as I'm aware there still needs to be a secondary source to avoid WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. This is because it is conceivable (albeit highly unlikely) that Wikipedia might get caught up in something like the Sokal affair or a simmilar issue with the peer review process. Again correct me if you can quote the policy to which you refer. --Jobrot (talk) 05:07, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

The issue is moot because of Boterberg 2016; wp:OR is "material ... for which no reliable, published sources exist"; and there is no wp:synth in quoting a definition. And see WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD : "Sometimes, a primary source is even the best possible source, such as when you are supporting a direct quotation. In such cases, the original document is the best source because the original document will be free of any errors or misquotations introduced by subsequent sources. ... The goal is only that the person (reader) could compare the primary source with the material in the Wikipedia article, and agree that the primary source actually, directly says just what the article says it does." —RCraig09 (talk) 05:45, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

• I've been following this since it was posted at RSN and thinking about it. The editing history of this article is interesting.

Seems to me that the central accepted global "sensory processing disorder" is autism spectrum. (There are lots of focal sensory processing disorders -- like Hyperacusis, tinnitus, Photosensitivity in humans, Hemispatial neglect, phantom limbs - that are tied to clear physiological deficits. I am talking about global things).

I am almost wondering if this article shouldn't be merged into Neurodiversity which seems to be its closest correlate.

There is Sensory processing disorder but that is also kind of a "pet theory" like this one is and this one stridently says it is not that. I have been wondering is if both this article and Sensory processing disorder shouldn't be cut way back and made into subsections of Sensory processing or something.

There is also Sensory overload which is a junky essay. There is Amplification (psychology) and there is Avoidant personality disorder which HSP almost seems like it is meant to be therapy for. And there is Differential susceptibility hypothesis which seems to be some kind of neurodiversity/HSP response to the [[Diathesis–stress model].

Kind of a big mess... moving this to Sensory processing sensitivity might help some but I am not sure that is really any better, big-picture-wise.

User:Casliber has done a bunch of work on Psych stuff in WP as has User:Dbrodbeck Would be good to get their thoughts as to whether this should stay or something else be done with it ... . Jytdog (talk) 07:10, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Sensory processing disorder is a much more commonly used term (though not clear as to how valid it is itself), so I would merge this to that one. Sensory overload is broader and has a lay-meaning. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:49, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

My first thought was sensory processing disorder too, but after reading up on both, I guess I didn't think they were really talking about the same thing. This one, SPS, claims to be a personality trait and eschews being considered a disorder. I will have to look at some of the other articles Jytdog mentioned. Off the top of my head, I'd cross off avoidant personality disorder, but some of the other ones sound potentially promising for a merge. Here's what I've been thinking since my last post a few hours ago (see talk:highly sensitive person#Reasons not to move or merge this article)... Elaine Aron has a book, The Highly Sensitive Person, and website, which are both all about HSP. A highly sensitive person is someone with high sensory processing sensitivity (SPS), also a term coined by Aron, which is measured by the Highly Sensitive Person Scale^TM, also developed by Aron. They're clearly notable enough for an article, but I'm having a hard time justifying why it should have multiple articles (this one is clearly bloated as I'm sure the book one is too), but at the same time I wouldn't be sure how to merge them, which one would be the main topic, etc.? Is there any policy that addresses that kind of situation? —PermStrump(talk) 08:51, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

The main issue is really WP:NPOV. I think this is a minority view, and it should be part of whatever article it is a minority view of, and given appropriate WEIGHT there. One reason I beckoned the psych people is they would probably have an immediate grasp of whether it is a minority view of X and what X is. I was casting around for X above..... Jytdog (talk) 09:01, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I think these suggestions are great and some of the most constructive comments I've seen so far. It seems there's a at least a consensus to swap HSP to SPS in namespace. --Jobrot (talk) 10:14, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I've gone ahead and moved/renamed the article and the associated talk page. Now it's just a matter of considering some of these other suggestions - a process which may take just a little while! --Jobrot (talk) 10:18, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

That was inappropriate in my view - you had no consensus to do that. Please don't do that again. Jytdog (talk) 11:36, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I must have misinterpreted what's been said above. I can completely undo it if you'd like; what's your objection exactly? --Jobrot (talk) 11:51, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Claiming consensus when there was nothing like it is just dishonest. I didn't support the move (this title is ridiculous to me). Permstrump didn't. Casliber didn't. Rcraig certaingly didn't. I don't care what you move it to, or if you move it back as I'm concentrating on the bigger issue of where this article fits in WP. But don't claim consensus when you don't have it. Jytdog (talk) 12:05, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I based my actions on your statement here; moving this to Sensory processing sensitivity might help some but I am not sure that is really any better, big-picture-wise. and User:Permstrump's statement over on the Reliable Sources Notice Board It seemed to me that if this article were written entirely by independent sources, it would probably be called sensory processing sensitivity (SPS) (which you may not have been aware of). I believe User:Permstrump's comments to you above were in reference to MERGING the article somewhere else, and not to the question of simply swapping the two titles (which were redirecting to one another regardless). Between the above and my own view I believe we have a consensus. I appreciate that you're perhaps trying to protect the rights of others here;- but can assure you that my actions are not uninformed or intentionally disruptive. Your statement, User:Permstrump's and my own viewpoint was how I determined consensus in this case. I hope that clarifies my actions. --Jobrot (talk) 12:17, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Everyone, it's actually not a "mess" if you understand that SPS is the trait in which one subpopulation's responsiveness/susceptibility/reactivity/sensitivity/etc to environmental stimuli is higher than another subpopulation's within the same species (see general concept this responsiveness/susceptibility/reactivity/sensitivity/etc concept in Wolf 2008 and the term's definer Aron 1997 which is cited by Wolf). SPS is definitely not autism, sensory processing disorder, sensory overload, Amplification (psychology), avoidant personality disorder, or differential susceptibility hypothesis. Sensory processing sensitivity is used in scientific journal articles (per list and per Boterberg 2016) but as the trait's scientific term SPS is less used in lay references. —RCraig09 (talk) 13:21, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

...well, under different terms which you claim are the same general concept; just multiple different names/ideas from multiple different authors - who all know they're referring the same thing but are refusing to use the same terminology? That's very strange. So you have all these different authors using different terms but they all believe in "sensitivity" and yet you're avoiding a merger to the general concept of Sensitivity_(Human) (because according to you all these different authors are referring to SPS whether they use the term or not [as you've said elsewhere on the page, you don't believe a term has to appear in a source for that source to be used on Wikipedia]). How educated people can be talking about a specific thing but willfully and knowingly choose to use separate and different term for it - ("Yeah, I'm talking about HSP/SPS I'm just not calling it that"???). Well; I just don't know how that would happen. Care to explain that? --Jobrot (talk) 13:42, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Not strange, if you understand the basics. I don't "care to explain that" but I will. The various terms referenced in Wolf 2008 refer to the same or equivalent trait or concept. But SPS is not any of the disorders etc I just listed at 13:21 16 June. Distinguish a source's concepts from WP editor comments. Don't confuse the two.—RCraig09 (talk) 14:09, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

So are you saying they're all talking about Sensitivity_(general), hence the different terms? After all, if they're not who would get to decide whose ideas are equivalent to whom?... and whose terms they use? Sources contain explicit statements - that's what I prefer to use. Not as you seem to agree WP editor's opinions of what is said; but the actual WORDS and QUOTES that are contained and explicitly stated within a source (ie. they'd have to use the same terms, not terms merely interpreted to be the same by us [that is quite a different thing WP:OR, and is not acceptable on Wikipedia]). --Jobrot (talk) 14:24, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Re the move/rename, Permstrump explicitly said, mere hours ago at 03:31 16 June, that he's undecided. There was nothing even approaching consensus. —13:21, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Let's allow User:Permstrump to determine their position and see if they have any objections. The change can be reverted at anytime (pending consensus); and as stated multiple times these pages REDIRECT at each other anyways. --Jobrot (talk) 13:31, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

-

Clearly I'm moving too fast for some editors, so I'll take a step back and let other editors determine the pace of changes to the article for a bit (article not talk page). I have after all been pushing for change on this article since January; and as a rule of thumb I don't make a massive number of changes to the article (to avoid edit warring). I definitely prefer editing via consensus building. --Jobrot (talk) 13:31, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to the move, but I'd still say I'm ambivalent. Sorry that's not super constructive. —PermStrump(talk) 14:10, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

That's okay, clearly I may have overstepped my bounds, so I have pulled myself back a bit, and will not be making any edits to the article without a more explicit consensus present. Thank you for clarifying, and I'm sorry to have put you in such a position where it was required of you. --Jobrot (talk) 14:19, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

So according to the image half way down the page HSPs are more likely to think before acting, and non-HSPs are more likely to act before thinking - and did you know HSPs are "sitters" whilst non-HSPs are "rovers"... and one group are"Priestly advisors" whilst the other group are "Warrior Kings" ... WP:IUP - "The purpose of an image is to increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter, usually by directly depicting people, things, activities, and concepts described in the article. The relevant aspect of the image should be clear and central." - I don't find this list clear or central. Anyone have any objections to me removing this image? --Jobrot (talk) 10:57, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Permstrump removed the earlier image description: "The sensory processing sensitivity (SPS) that characterizes HSPs is thought to embody one of two complementary strategies, advantageous in different respective circumstances.(ref name=2004RevisitingJung/) The strategies are grounded in part on evolutionary survival strategies characterizing humans and over 100 species, and have been described in various ways(ref name=AronAronJPSP1997/(ref name=JournalJung2006/)(ref name=AdultShyness2005/)(ref name=2004RevisitingJung/)(ref name=WolfEmergenceResponsive2008/)(ref name=CulturalDiffs2010/) as shown in this chart. The strategies reflect different respective approaches to foraging, parasites, mating, parenting, defending territory, and avoiding predators.(ref name=2004RevisitingJung/)".

- They're not just words, but show complementary characteristics of subpopulations within each species, which is central to the SPS concept as a trait and not a disorder. Yes, most of these particular references are Aron's, but as I recall Aron sometimes quoted other researchers for these terminology pairs. (bracing self for the inevitable summary deletion from article, and addition of unsourced tangential discussion to follow here). —RCraig09 (talk) 13:53, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I saw the expanded explanation in an older version. It read like evo-psyche conjecture "these members of these species must have had this strategy because..." I didn't find it convincing. However, as stated above, I'm taking a step back and allowing other editors to determine the pacing of article edits. --Jobrot (talk) 14:05, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

The previous description was absurdly long and unencyclopedic on multiple levels. It was original research, undue promotion of fringe (among other issues), and I agree with Jobrot that the whole kit 'n caboodle is incompatible with the MOS. Here it says, "Textual information should almost always be entered as text rather than as an image." and also, "Captions should be succinct". —PermStrump(talk) 19:05, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

It read like bad evolutionary psychology. (Said the evolutionary psychologist.....) Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:19, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Poof! —RCraig09 (talk) 02:56, 20 June 2016 (UTC)