User:Zeraeph/NPA

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 GA Promotion 2 Comment 3 Rating 4 Discussion 4.1 Copying last comment in discussion to new discussion 5 Self Published 6 Consensus for mid-importance? Based on what?

[edit] GA Promotion

I have recently reviewed this article & found that it meets the criterion for being a good article. So I have promoted it to GA status. My congratulations to all the contributors for doing a fine job.

Cheers

Srikeit^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 10:20, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comment

The article NPA personality theory adds honor to the Wikipedia. The article currently is listed as a Good Article after having been voted down for Featured Article based on lack of comments from experts in this field to validate its assertions.

This reasoning is sound as far as it goes, but there is no validation by experts in this field of any theory of personality, so the reader is invited to take the evidence presented by this article and the experts cited as sufficient for the experts cited are of high quality.

The rating I would like to give this article for quality is Featured Article quality: 5 The rating is based on its logical organization, its engrossing, orderly progression from the known to the new. For what it aims to cover, the article hits broadly and sufficiently deeply the basic principles of the genetics of human personality.

The nature of this subject is speculative, almost akin to subatomic particles, we can only approximate and see to it that all the observed facts of the subject are consistent with the theory. As such, the NPA theory is analogous to Darwin's Theory of Evolution in that it frames the complete context of knowledge of biologic beings in a new and startling and even dazzling light.

And after several years of studying this theory, I can attest to that.

The importance of this article is of the top designation. There is no subject in the Wikipedia that could be of more importance to address than the human personality.

We are devoting every energy to furthering knowledge of this theory. We invite your attention to this article as every fact in it has been carefully and meticulously researched.

Donna K. Hobgood, M.D. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Donnamd@pol.net (talk • contribs).

I should like to add a few points of information. The article was submitted to Wikipedia at the request of one of the editors. The original version was shorter and without illustrations. It was expanded and citations added, again at the request of the editors and peer review critics. I am familiar with Dr. Hobgood’s research. She has a data base of over two thousand patients and, with the use of the NPA personality test, is attempting to correlate personality factors with disease entities. -– A.Benis Bienek 15:10, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Credit goes to D-Katana for spotting the NPA website and recognizing its importance. And he has stated the case for Featured Article status succinctly. As he has pointed out, it is unlike any other theory or explanation of human behavior. Thus it should be read with a different mindset.

One point I would like to make is that the theory is not only completely logically consistent but it is unrefuted. Further, we are collecting daily more evidence to validate the theory. And the use of the test is very helpful to patients in their understanding of their emotions and feelings and of personality and its role in genetic succeptibility to some illnesses and conditions.

But the most stunning support for the theory is the meticulously collected genealogies of European royalty (and other celebrity families). Not a single historian or biographer has refuted one iota of this information. And Wikipedia readers are encouraged to dig into it and try to refute it or validate it.

The family genealogies and categorization as to NPA status is almost evidence enough for the NPA theories assertions. And the general reader can follow this information and profit from it. Donna K. Hobgood, M.D. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Donnamd@pol.net (talk • contribs).

[edit] Rating

As per previous comments, the NPA personality theory article has been rated. A rating of "FA" has been given on the merit of prior comments and discourse; the article, apparantly, meets the WP:FA criteria. However, subjectivity comes into play regards the notability of the theory itself; though traffic and interest in the NPA website has risen somewhat since its prolifigation on Wikipedia. An importance rating of "High" has been given. - D-Katana 12:50, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

• I removed your ratings. I looked at the FAC discussion. That discussion consisted of two strong objections and no support except from the nominator. It clearly failed the featured article nomination, which is why the {{facfailed}} tag is at the top of this page. I would also question its rating of high importance. --Cswrye 16:05, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Can you provide reasoning as to the question of the importance of this article? We are experienced editors; is it perhaps wise to hold a wider vote and discussion regards this article? -- D-Katana 22:50, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

IMPORTANCE OF THE ARTICLE

If the assessment of importance is based on universal agreement on the contents of the article, then one can understand the rating of lesser importance of this article. However, if the importance rating is based on the importance of the topic and the broaching of new and high quality knowledge, then the article should be studied long and hard before dismissing it out of hand. This article is the only comprehensive and scientifically based theory of inheritance of behavior that is currently in the Wikipedia or any other encyclopedia. If editors have occasion to study the article, it is highly unlikely that they will dismiss its importance. To use the comparison with Darwin's Theory of Evolution, many, many, many scholars still dismiss its importance and validily. It stands as the most important theory of all time for one reason: it is logically plausible, consistent, explains the facts of experience, has stood the test of time, and predicts phenomenon which can be traced and validated. The NPA personality theory, while narrower in scope than Darwin's Evolution Theory, is similar also in the following way: When it is further validated with medical research findings, just as Darwin's Theory of Evolution did, it will change humanity's concept of who we are. It will show why we are different from each other and why we are alike. It will dispell racism by showing that similar behavior is seen in racial groups only as a manifestation of the NPA types prevalent in those groups, and the theory will also demonstrate the same behavioral types in all racial and ethnic groups. If the editors of Wikipedia truly believe that the theory has insufficient plausibility and the authorities and experts cited insufficient credentials, that will reflect much on the quality of the editors as well as the question of the importance of the article. Donna K. Hobgood, M.D. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Donnamd@pol.net (talk • contribs).

• Thank you for starting this discussion. Keep in mind that our assessment of the importance of the theory should not be based on our beliefs of the validity or plausibility of the theory. That constitutes original research. Nor should it be based on whether or not we believe it will become more valuable in the future because Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. My issue with the rating of this article is that the theory currently does not appear to be regarded as important to the field of psychology by the profession itself as evidenced by the small number of reliable sources that mention the theory. I looked through several undergraduate- and graduate-level textbooks on psychology, personality, and personality testing and did not see a single mention of NPA personality theory. My Master's thesis dealt with personality, and I never saw the theory mentioned in any of the articles that I read. I do not have PsychINFO or a similar psychology publication database with me to search at this moment for me to look for other mentions of the theory, but the article itself only references very few authors with the vast majority of references coming only a couple. I am not questioning the credentials of those authors, but many, many psychological theories are put forth by knowledgeable, credible authors; not all of those theories are important to the general field of psychology. The Psychology WikiProject currently does not have an assessment scale to aid in the evaluation of psychology ariticles, but generally, the assessment of imporance is a relative assessment. That is, how important is this article in comparison to other articles in the project? In comparison, I will point out that the article on the Big Five personality traits is marked as mid-importance. This concept in psychology can be found in virtually every textbook on psychology or personality, and it has been studied, written about, and critiqued by numerous psychologists and other experts. There is not nearly as much information published about NPA theory as the Big Five. The assessment of high-importance is generally reserved for well-known and well-published articles in a field, such as personality psychology, schizophrenia, Sigmund Freud, and so on. Again, this is not a criticism of the theory itself, as that's not what Wikipedia is about. Rather, I am pointing out that theory is currently not regarded as highly important by most professionals in the field itself. Perhaps it will become regarded as important in the future, but it is premature to indicate it as such right now. —Cswrye 14:56, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • How do you suggest we rate the article? -- D-Katana 18:04, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
    • The lack of peer-reviewed sources apart from Dr. Benis (who developed the theory) concerns me the most. I also did a Google search for "npa personality theory" and found about 2,400 hits, which is relatively low compared to most similar articles. I'd probably rate it as A-quality and Low-importance. I'd be willing to compromise with a Mid-importance assessment though. --Cswrye 20:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
      • In terms of cross-referencing and sociological contnet, does this article possess depth? -- D-Katana 13:15, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
        • If it did, I think that it would get more recognition from the psychological community, so no, I don't think it does. --Cswrye 14:38, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
          • Would contacting some members of the psychological community regards this article assist the pending assessment? - D-Katana 21:18, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
            • I do think that it would be good to get input from others regarding the importance of this article, but how do you propose doing that? --Cswrye 21:28, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

The proposed ratings are currently : A- (Quality). Low, Mid, or High (Importance). Greater detail regards the theory available at the NPA parent website. Suggestions, comments, insight and views appreciated regards and possible improvements in terms of sub-articles, sources and so on. Thanks everyone! :) -- D-Katana 14:28, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Although Wikipedia, like all encyclopedias, would recognize, more routinely, peer-reviewed journals' weighing in on any theory> Is this correct? Isn't it also true that peer reviewed psychology journals are unlikely to champion a theory that departs so radically from the conventional wisdom of psychology.

This is the situation for the NPA theory of personality. Instead, interest and further research is likely to emanate from "pop psychology" before the academic community of psychologists digs in and does prospective controlled and double blind clinical studies and the neurogeneticists get the loci identified. I would think that Dr. Phil, for example would be very likely to feature this work in some way. And the show from which he spun off , Oprah, likewise is likely to be open to it. Something as simple as sending the book to the Oprah folks for review may be more likely to get some traction going for the NPA personality theory. Why would Wikipedia be affected? Wikipedia both shows its support for the work in this theory by its positive attention and evaluations. And, in turn, Wikipedia has the honor of the recognition for championing the theory before any other group of scholars took it on for further development and propagation. Hobgood —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Donnamd@pol.net (talk • contribs).

That's a problem. Wikipedia is not supposed to be championing any theories. That would be a violation of the original research policy. Wikipedia summarizes information from reliable sources; it reports published information, but it should not be used to establish recognition for a topic. Doing so could be considered a violation of the vanity guidelines. —Cswrye 02:31, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

As per your requests and the points previously raised, shall we go with A (Quality) and a "Low" (Importance) rating? -- D-Katana 14:55, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

In the absence of any additional discussion, that's what I would support. I put up an RFC for this just in case. —Cswrye 14:36, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I have just spent some time looking at the kind of articles that are in each category of importance. Can I suggest that you take a look at the kind of articles that are here [1] (Mid Importance)? Because it seems to me that NPA Theory is a far better fit with them, than with the articles here [2] (Low Importance). It seems to me that most of those are stubs on obscure subjects, whereas this is a very comprehensive and beautifully presented article.

I really do not think the article should be penalised on account of the hypothetical, potential preferences of the "pop psychology" brigade. It isn't about "championing" the theory, it is about presenting it objectively and accurately, and, as such, if the NPA theory is correct it is central to human psychology not "peripheral knowledge to the field of psychology and possibly trivial but still notable" (the criteria for classifying articles of low importance). The only thing disqualifying the article from high importance, "Subject contributes a depth of knowledge to the field of psychology." (the criteria for classifying articles of high importance), is the current lack of academic recognition for the theory.

So may I suggest you consider "Mid Importance"? --Zeraeph 00:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Since Benis' page already mentions his theroy and has three links to his website, that seems enough, don't you think? - given that this is not even research, but a "creative" way of looking at physical traits in the body and pairing it with Horney's theorectical work on what SHE believed of personality structural division into 3 traits that determined the totality of human behavior. And there have been many other theories of personality development. All, from first to last, merely theories. Thank goodness there is more and more sound science spearheading the understanding of personality. Frankly, I agreed with the removal of his section on the narcissism and npd topics. It's even "self-published" for that matter - shudder. Original "thinking" (not even research except his completely creative retrospective diagnosing of historical figures. Remote diagnosis is totally out of line in anything purporting to be serious work. It's cartoons and coloring books -- I am Kiwi 02:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry, I can't quite follow your comments regarding retrospective diagnosis. Perhaps if you read the article itself more carefully you will realise that NPA theory is not about diagnosis AT ALL but about identifying and quantifying three personality traits which, according to the theory, define all personality. It is a totally different usage of the term "narcissism" to the usage in clinical psychology and psychoanalysis (much of the reason why the section was included in the generic Narcissism article, not Narcissism (psychology)).

The article does not present NPA theory as any more than a theory presented by an impeccably accredited academic and medical practitioner. If, for example, the article were to (just to give a ridiculous example) present the relevant aspects of NPA theory as, the definition of an established concept like Narcissistic Personality Disorder, it would be a quite different matter, and absolutely unaccceptable, if you can follow that? --Zeraeph 11:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

PS - I missed this - to clear up an obvious misunderstanding, where on earth did "self published" come from? As the article states, "NPA Theory" was published in 1985 by a reputable New York academic publisher called "Psychological Dimensions" who had a pretty impressive booklist to their credit (see [3]). --Zeraeph 21:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that what this person means is that since the developer of the source material (Anthony M. Benis) is the same person who wrote most of this Wikipedia article (User:ABenis), a conflict of interest exists. While situations like this usually are frowned upon because a person cannot evaluate his or her own work objectively, they do not violate any rules as long as they conform to the NPOV, no original research and verifiability policies. —Cswrye 21:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Not sure that's what the editor means (see bottom of page) but it's a valid point. However, as a theory formally published in 1985 it satisfies WP:OR and WP:V. The formal academic style of the article seems, to me, to satisfy WP:NPOV rather better than many articles, hard to see what could be changed to make it more so? So that shouldn't be a problem? --Zeraeph 22:29, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment to Zeraeph - Keep in mind that an article's importance is independent of its quality. A stub could still be rating as high importance if it covers a core area of psychology. Likewise, a featured article could still have a low importance if it covers an obscure topic. It is not our place on Wikipedia to decide whether NPA theory is "correct" as that would be original research. We only summarize other research. There are many, many personality theories out there, and this theory has yet to be recognized by the psychological community as standing out among them. I wouldn't contest a mid-importance assessment, but I'm still convinced that as things stand now, this topic falls too far among the fringes of pschological research to deserve more than a low-importance assessment. —Cswrye 03:15, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment to Cswrye - those factors of importance are absolutely the qualities I was determined to base my opinion on. But beyond that I looked at the actual articles in the different categories as examples.

I am not convinced that NPA theory IS correct. I am, however, convinced by Dr Benis credentials (which are impeccable, his Education being largely Ivy League, and a teaching position in Cambridge England, along with years as a qualified medical practitioner, are not to be ignored), the care with which he has presented and argued it, and the methodology of his research (which though a little unconventional in it's historical approach seems to me as valid as any other, though there are possibilities of error, where are there not in any research into human psychology?), that NPA theory is a valid theory.

Beyond that, either the theory is disproven, in which case it becomes simply "a mistake", or it is an hypothesis concerning factors that are central, rather than peripheral, to psychology. The categories do get a little tricky, because they rather combine this element of importance with "degree of recognition" ,which two factors are actually quite independent, so that the theory would have mid to high importance on how central it is to the concept of psychology, but low importance in terms of recognition. However, it seems the precedent is, when in doubt, the higher category is chosen unless the article is a stub. So you can see that I put a lot of careful thought into suggesting "mid importance". --Zeraeph 11:34, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Again, what you're proposing qualifies as original research. It is not our place to decide whether or not this is a valid theory. We should only base our evaluations on what has been reported by reliable sources, and to that end, a topic's importance is related to its degree of recognition in its applicable field. Thus far, there has been only one published article on this theory, and it has not been widely recognized. I am not questioning the credentials of Dr. Benis, but keep in mind that many credentialed scientists develop theories, models, and research that never make an impact on their discipline. One way of looking at the importance of a topic is this: Would someone in this field of study be knowledgeable of this topic? In this case, I doubt that most people who have done in-depth studies of personality would have heard of NPA personality theory, let alone be familiar with it. If this really is an important theory, it will attract the attention of other personality researchers and undergo further development. If that happens, the importance should be raised, but I don't think that it's there yet. I'm still convinced that this is currently a low-importance article. —Cswrye 14:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I must have put myself very badly, what I mean is that, as an hypothesis, NPA Theory is valid, in the sense of being properly presented on valid premise.

In many other contexts I would agree with you that the importance of a theory relates entirely to it's degree of recognition in an appropriate field BUT the criteria for Psychology importance scale Wikipedia:WikiProject Psychology/Assessment are at variance with that clearly stating:

• High-importanceSubject contributes a depth of knowledge to the field of psychology. Most experts in psychology will be familiar with the topic. The subject can be found in most academic studies of psychology, and a significant amount of published research exists for it. Example: Schizophrenia

• Mid-importanceSubject fills in more minor details but is still important to the field of psychology. Many psychologists are knowledgeable of the topic. Published research from a variety of sources exists for the subject. Example: Big Five personality traits

• Low-importanceSubject is peripheral knowledge to the field of psychology and possibly trivial but still notable. There may be limited research on the topic, or most professionals in psychology have not yet taken note of it. Example: Liberation psychology

This clearly shows the dual criteria of:

• The scope of the article with regard to the field of psychology
• The degree of recognition which the subject of the article has received.

I do think this is a very unfortunate choice of two criteria that are frequently totally independent of each other, and in terms of individual articles may often place the same article at different ends of the importance scale with regard to the two seperate criteria, but, for now, those are the criteria for selection.

That being so, the scope of NPA theory is at the core of psychology, and clearly qualifies as mid to high on the criteria as they stand, though I agree, the recognition qualifies as low. Mid seemed the obvious compromise to me.

Personally I think it may be time to discuss using not two, but three, criteria for the Psychology importance scale, such as "quality", "scope", and "importance"?--Zeraeph 15:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I would disagree with you on both counts. Within the context of Wikipedia, we have no basis for determining the depth of a topic within its field except through the published research that has been done on it. Otherwise, we would be doing original research. Because of this, I disagree about this theory being at the core of psychology. As I mentioned before, many new psychological theories are developed all the time, and all of them are an attempt to add depth to the field, but most of them make little to no long-term impact on the discipline. The lack of published research on this topic clearly shows that it has not yet established any significance to the field of Psychology. Will it make an impact in the future? Quite possibly, but that's not for Wikipedia to decide. I still think that this is a clear example of a low-importance article, but if there's no additional discussion, I'm willing to compromise with a mid-importance rating.

As for the criteria, it's based on the criteria established by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team, and it's really there for that group's purposes. I believe that the team uses the importance scale to prioritize which articles to develop so that they will be put into version 1.0. There's nothing stopping us from adding more criteria, but I don't think it would serve any relevant purpose. You can still propose it there or at WikiProject Psychology if you want. I'll also point out a bias on my part--I'm the one who customized the generic Version 1.0 Editorial Team importance scale into the one we're using for WikiProject Psychology. —Cswrye 16:44, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say the theory was at the core of psychology, it couldn't possibly be without considerable recognition, I said the scope of the theory (defining the personality) was at the core of psychology, which is a very different statement.

As you customised the criteria I feel bound to point out that, from what you are saying here, it genuinely seems to me that there may be considerable difference between what you intend the criteria to communicate and what they actually say at present, which could use a little attention?

Thanks for the compromise on mid-importance. --Zeraeph 17:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I apologize for the misunderstanding about the "scope" of the theory. I'm still not sure that I understand what you mean by it. The importance scale mentions "depth" but not "scope", and while "scope" is certainly one aspect of "depth", I don't think that they are equivalent. From the way that you define importance, it seems that every personality theory is important, regardless of how obscure it might be, simply because it has to do with personality.

The importance scale probably does need work. I did have one person (the person who set up the scale on the Psychology WikiProject in the first place) look at it, and he approved of the descriptions, although he did suggest adding more examples. I would actually appreciate any input you could have into it. Unfortunately, the Psychology WikiProject isn't as active as I would like it to be.

The Version 1.0 Editorial Team uses the importance of an article as a rough estimate of whether or not it should be included in a print encyclopedia if one is made. For example, top-rated articles are absolutely essential for any encyclopedia, while low-rated articles are optional and probably would not be included in most encyclopedias. Top- and high-rated articles tend to be broad general areas or well-known topics, such as those that would be covered in an entry-level class on the subject. Here is a general description of how I interpreted the importance levels, which I believe are inline with the Version 1.0 team's purposes:

• Top-importance is for core topics that are so vital that an encyclopedia could not even be considered for printing without it. These tend to be broad, general areas that are critical to any further studies of psychology.
• High-importance articles are foundational topics that would probably be covered in your average undergraduate-level Psychology 101 class, so anyone with a basic knowlege of psychology would have heard about it.
• Mid-importance articles probably would not be covered in an introductory class, but they probably would be covered in other undergraduate classes. It would be considered basic knowledge for most people with an undergraduate degree in psychology but probably not for the average person.
• Low-importance articles deal with issues that probably would only be known to people who have performed detailed studies of a topic and may deal with issues that even most pscyhologists would not know about unless they have chosen to specifically study that topic. I think that this would include topics that would not be covered until one reaches a Master's level education or higher, unless you had a special interest in that topic. These articles are probably too obscure for a printed general-interest encyclopedia, although they might be found in a printed encyclopedia of psychology.

That's why I think that this article deserves a low-importance rating. I doubt that the average psychologist has ever heard of this theory. In fact, considering that there hasn't been any additional research on it, I doubt that the average psychologist who focuses on personality has heard of this theory. This currently falls in the periphery of personality research, and until more studies on it are done, it is not an essential element to the field of psychology. —Cswrye 19:01, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I really have been putting myself badly...what I mean by "scope" is the fact that the scope of the article's topic is defining the *overview* of human personality, if that makes sense? That kind of scope is on par with Freud's id, ego and superego, in the sense that if the theory is recognised and proven beyond doubt it must be a foundation of all human psychology.

I relate this relative importance to the fact that articles like "sleep" and "love" are considereed to be concepts of top level importance to psychology when there are many who would argue that those topics aren't really part of psychology at all.

Can we shift much of this discussion over to the project because it isn't relevant here, but it seems very important?

I am going to copy your definitions above, my list of existing definitions and put a link to this discussion if I may? --Zeraeph 19:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it's a great idea to shift this discussion to the WikiProject. Feel free to link to this discussion. I'd much rather see this get input from a variety of people, and maybe we can use it to trigger more activity on the WikiProject. I think that I'm getting a better understanding of what you mean by "importance", and I'd like to talk about that more on the other discussion. —Cswrye 19:52, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

All copied over ;o) (hope I put it in right place?)--Zeraeph 20:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I've heard some people interpret consensus as a decision that everyone can live with. I still think that this article should be listed as low-importance, and some other editors think it should be listed as high, but all of us seem to be okay with a mid-importance assessment. How about if we go ahead and mark this as A-class, mid-importance and bring the discussion to a close? —Cswrye 15:54, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copying last comment in discussion to new discussion

Cawrye's last comment duplicated to this link, new discussion begun so it can be more easily found by others.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:NPA_personality_theory#Consensus_for_mid-importance.3F__Based_on_what.3F

[edit] Self Published

Benis is self published. For several years, he would wait until someone sent him a modest payment to cover the cost of his printing and binding he would do at that time. Even years later, you will not find his book at Amazon or any other bookseller I can find. Here is the only way to currently purchase his book - from the author. http://narcissism.homestead.com/orderbook.html The only review I found was by laymen on webpage. The only link to a book regarding the theory in a search of Google Scholar Search seems to be this: AM Benis - "A theory of personality traits leads to a genetic model for borderline types and schizophrenia" in Speculations in Science and Technology, 1990 and the only citation of this is in Benis' later book regarding certain primates, gorillas and man. - --I am Kiwi 21:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Not self-published

Greetings --

We have received an email from Zeraeph requesting comment regarding the above statements.

We are extremely reluctant to intrude into the work of experienced Wikipedia editors who are trying their best to rate this article, but we are happy to correct some misstatements.

The book in question Toward Self & Sanity: on the genetic origins of the human character was published in hard cover in 1985 by Psychological Dimensions, Inc., a reputable publisher, and one of four who were willing to publish the manuscript. Following is the publisher’s statement, from page xxi:

PUBLISHER'S STATEMENT

The publisher is personally proud to have had his firm selected as the publisher of this landmark book by Dr. Benis. Even on a cursory examination, the reader will notice its unusual format, the striking originality of its ideas, and the very broad relevance of these ideas. The questions that Dr. Benis considers are ones that must eventually be faced if we are to progress in our basic under¬standing of human behavior. Everyone connected with this project believes the author's views merit the most serious consideration by scientists and laypersons alike.

The timeliness of Dr. Benis' work could hardly be more apt. It comes at a time when Darwin's theory of evolution is being questioned by those who espouse "Creationism," and it comes at a time when the mere mention of the term "sociobiology" arouses con¬troversy. It comes at a time when the field of psychiatry is searching for new directions. And it comes at a time when communications between anthropologists, psychologists, psychiatrists and neurologists range from the most dismal to the non-existent, even though they are studying virtually the same behavioral phenomena.

In this book the author develops a theory of human per¬sonality that is the most quantitative I have seen to date, and I have been responsible for the publication of many books in personality and related fields. What makes this book especially exciting is that the theory it presents is testable under rigorous laboratory condi¬tions. Certainly the time has come for a new interdisciplinary approach to the investigation of behavioral traits, which makes me en¬thusiastic about the potential implications this theory has for all of science.

It is important to note that Dr. Benis' book is one that in¬spires optimism. It cuts across sexual, racial and ethnic boundaries. And more than ever, it reemphasizes that whatever the differences in the fine details of our lives, we are all part of the family of humankind.

If you would like to obtain more information regarding this theory, or if you wish to contribute research to the development of this theory, or if you simply wish to be considered a participant for future research on this theory, you may contact the author.

In conclusion, my staff and I are committed to making fur¬ther contributions to the dissemination of information in this field. It may be in the form of books, journals, tests, computer information retrieval systems, newsletters, or whatever other format may be best suited for accessing information in behavioral genetics to selected au¬diences of either pure scientists, applied scientists, medical practi¬tioners, medical researchers, pharmaceutical researchers, industrial managers, scientific administrators, or simply laypersons.

I hope this book generates new insights and new ideas for you, just as the insights and ideas the readers of the manuscript had when they practically "demanded" that this book be published by us.

Robert W. Wesner, President & Publisher

July 1, 1984

Although the book is long out of print and the publishing house defunct, second-hand copies can be purchased at Amazon here.

Other books published by the House can be retrieved by conducting an internet search on "Psychological Dimensions, Inc.".

The article cited was in the peer-reviewed journal, Speculations in Science and Technology. We had no previous connection with this journal, although we were later asked to serve on its editorial board.

The reference to “printing and binding” must refer to bound photocopies of the book that we would send to interested individuals, mainly students, long after the book was out of print and before the electronic version was available.

Finally, we have had no “later book”. The comment must refer to our web site on social behavior in primates.

The field of personality is a diffuse one and still in its infancy, and there is no consensus as to what is the best approach. No theory has yet been validated according to accepted standards of the scientific method.

Our thanks to D-Katana, Zeraeph and others for their constructive criticism. If the article has received good grades for its form, it is because of their efforts: the article as originally submitted at their request was short and without illustrations.

Respectfully, ABenis Bienek 00:56, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I extend my apologies to you, Dr Benis. I had searched at Amazon for your name and the title as given elsewhere, not for this title, Toward Self & Sanity: on the genetic origins of the human character." Perhaps it has been "renamed" by some and somewhere. The web is not always a highly accurate place.

You really should, given the excitement on this page, seek for a new publisher. I would look for a totally different popular kind of publishing house. The best way to choose is to spend time in a bookstore, taking note of what publishing books like yours to a lay audience for popular reading, rather than to a publishing house directed to scientists or psychologists. --I am Kiwi 06:04, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Now that seems to be cleared up I hope we can all move on. --Zeraeph 09:36, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Consensus for mid-importance? Based on what?

(in reference to the discussion above - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:NPA_personality_theory#Discussion)

I've heard some people interpret consensus as a decision that everyone can live with. I still think that this article should be listed as low-importance, and some other editors think it should be listed as high, but all of us seem to be okay with a mid-importance assessment. How about if we go ahead and mark this as A-class, mid-importance and bring the discussion to a close? —Cswrye 15:54, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Mid importance works for me...it isn't perfect, but what is? Lets DO it. --Zeraeph 19:20, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Higher up on the page, you stated that you had "googled" "NPA Personality Theory" and come up with well over 2,000 hits. However, I just now did a google search, came up with only 80 unique hits, tediously clicked through on all of them. I discovered that except for Benis' own synopsis of his paper that he keeps online at Geocities, there was little else. :-- that all of the rest of the links were on bogus sites.

Such as the kind that consist of nothing but a page of paid for links - the kind that suggest you try looking for "NPA Personality Theory" at ebay.com.

Such as websites consisting of nothing but lists of links - the kind that pairs your website for your theory with gardening websites and those for games and puzzles.

Such as About.com

Such as sites that merely copy this wiki topic

Such as the kind where you nominate your own site

And finally, where the much maligned and discredited Sam Vaknin has mentioned Benis's theory.

True, were also a number of links to Benis' royalty discussion forum and a couple of mentions on chat sites.

I didn't think this constituted "moderate importance", but I decided to check Google Scholoar before drawing a conclusion. Google Scholar came up with only 3 documents. Two by Benis. Only citation on either was Benis citing his own book. And the third? Sam's NPDQuotes again.

I was more than a little astonished that you should indicate that you are deciding on a "consensus" where 4 people recommended Low Importance and Zeraeph only campaigned for High Importance. How does one person's enthusiasm force a psychologist to make such poor leap in judgement?

I would suggest that, to prevent extreme embarrassment to the Wikipedia Psychology Portal, that this discussion be placed SOMEWHERE ELSE where those with more expertise can contribute to the evaluation of importance of this topic. --A green Kiwi in learning mode 19:02, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood...I suggested mid importance, as a compromise between the fact that the scope of the theory (being central to human psychology) belonged in "high", but the limited recognition belonged in "low", so "mid" seemed the best fit particularly taking into account the other articles listed as "mid"...I think it was D-Katana who wanted high importance? --Zeraeph 19:20, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

In accord with the discussion and comprimise therein, the article has been rated at A- (Quality) and Mid (Importance). - D-Katana 13:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, the reality is that consensus depends on the people who are involved in a discussion, so if only four people discuss something, their decision is consensus. Here's how things stand now. D-Katana and Donnamd@pol.net both support high-importance, and although he hasn't said so directly, I assume that ABenis does as well. Zeraeph supports mid-importance. I support low importance, and I assume that A Kiwi does too. That's three votes for high, one for mid, and two for low. I've mentioned this debate on WP:RFC, WP:PSY, and WP:1.0, and no one from those places commented here. I'd love to see some more expert opinion on this topic, but I'm at a loss about how to reach anyone else. In the meantime, a mid-importance assessment seems like a reasonable compromise. —Cswrye 23:47, 24 October 2006 (UTC)