Talk:Sensory processing sensitivity

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Asong8.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:58, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

High Sensitivity as such ?

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)

Original research?

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)

Other languages

There appears to be other research in Germany and The Netherlands, independently of Dr. Aron's. My German and Dutch, however, isn't good enough to decipher it.

If you could provide some links, I am a native Dutch speaker and can probably also decipher most German. -- Manuzhai

Can you provide the Dutch references? -- Renato

I am HSP myself and the info seems to be correct. There is not much known about HSP anyway since the psychological idea of it is quite new. And that's one of the problems with recognition and acceptance of it in the first place. Just like Whiplash was 15 years ago... -- Jeroen

I wouldn't call it research, but in Austria and in the Netherlands there seems to be quite some publicity work for high sensitivity, imho. Alrik Fassbauer (talk) 14:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Future Additions

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)

Clarifications

It would be much easier to convey how this construct relates to the rest of the psychometric literature if research findings were phrased in terms of the measures used to classify a "highly sensitive person" (rather than in terms of a loosely-defined set of traits asserted to characterize a "highly sensitive person"). It looks like Aron and Aron developed the Highly Sensitive Person Scale for this sort of purpose, and some connections have been established in later literature. From Smolewska, McCabe, & Woody, 2006:

"...in contrast to Aron and Aron's finding that the scale is unidimensional, the current results support a three-component structure consisting of Aesthetic Sensitivity (AES), Low Sensory Threshold (LST), and Ease of Excitation (EOE). BIS activity was especially associated with the component of EOE. In addition, the components had different patterns of association with the "Big Five". More specifically, AES showed the strongest relation with Openness to Experience, while LST and EOE were found to be most closely associated with Neuroticism."

But it's more important to demonstrate some discriminant validity of HSP measures compared with other personality scales if one is to make the case that this construct doesn't just exist to sell books. 68.35.68.100 23:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I'd like to see more discriminant validity and anything that would make me think this isn't stuff mostly made up by these authors. Sensitivity like they describe happens to people in the autistic spectrum. Is there any research out there to suggest that this 'high sensitivity' is a valid construct? In its present form, it seems to be more easily described by other things, perhaps mild autism or just human variation, as opposed to a state or condition that needs an independent nomenclature. --DanielCD 02:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I added a link to the Highly Sensitive Person Scale and included a remark on its existence in the lead section. The difference between Autism and Sensitivity is comparable to the difference between day and night; sensitivity to others is profound in HSPs and shallow at best in ASD. "Sensitivity like they describe happens to people in the autistic spectrum" is a false assertion.

I'd like to point out, in addition, that the quote you (68.35.68.100) provided is conveniently truncated to serve your skepticism. I am not sure that this is rigorous and honest. The preceding sentences are: "Aron and Aron (1997) developed the Highly Sensitive Person Scale (HSPS) to measure individual differences in sensory-processing sensitivity (SPS). The purpose of the present study was to examine further the psychometric properties of the HSPS, and its association with the behavioural inhibition system (BIS) and behavioural activation system (BAS) (Carver & White, 1994), and the "Big Five" (Costa & McCrae, 1992). Results demonstrate that the HSPS is a valid and reliable measure of the construct of SPS." Hmm. Aren't we talking here about a "valid construct", as you say? If the test has a cut-off line (HSPs vs the others), as was demonstrated by Aron using the HSPS, how can you say that it is a matter of "human variation"? There is very little ground for you to accuse Aron of being motivated by self-interest. Please refrain from this kind of aggressive skepticism. Pierre-Alain Gouanvic 07:51, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Completely Editing this Article

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)

Advice (moved from article)

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." 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."

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."

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!”

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.

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.

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. —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)

References

Bogus?

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). 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) 

References

Criticism

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).

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)

References

Evidence

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.

Reasons not to move or merge this article

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)

Outcomes

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)

Name change

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)

Minority view of personality psychology?

User:Jytdog pinged me and here I am.... Anyway, I should note that this is outside my area of specialization in psychology (I'm more a comparative cognition/behaivoural neuroscience type). That said, this stuff strikes me as a minority view as far as personality psych goes. Leafing through an intro book I can tell you that this is not in the personality section. Dbrodbeck (talk) 17:05, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Dbrodbeck Thanks for replying! So in your review condense and redirect/merge to Personality psychology, would be reasonable? And are there other experienced psych editors who could be helpful here, that you are aware of? thanks again. Jytdog (talk) 18:30, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

The notion does seem to be about a personality characteristic or trait, that is pretty clear. That said, there is a lot here, and if it were to be condensed and put in the personality psych article it would be I think at best a passing mention. I am, however, just one guy, and as noted, this is not really my area of psychology per se. Dbrodbeck (talk) 18:36, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Further, I just looked at Authoritarian personality and it has its own article. It is mentioned in intro books and I think we can say it is much less a minority view. I'm not sure how much that helps.... Dbrodbeck (talk) 18:39, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Super helpful, thanks! Will keep thinking....Jytdog (talk) 19:12, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

FWIW I'm a mental health therapist (licensed clinical social worker), so I don't feel like I'm totally talking out of my @#$ or anything, though this obviously isn't my specialty. IMO it's clearly not a mainstream view within academia, which essentially makes it wp:fringe as far as WP is concerned. It's not the same category of fringe as say, Transcendental Meditation, (at least not when you're looking at the independent, peer-reviewed sources), but I think it falls solidly in the pop psych realm, which is probably where it will fizzle. If it doesn't and if in the future it piques the interest of more scholars, then it would make sense to have two articles, one for Aron's book The Highly Sensitive Person and one for the personality trait of HSPs, also coined by Aron, "sensory processing sensitivity". As it still hasn't pick up steam in the almost 20 years since the book was first published, it seems undue at this point to have two articles and runs the risk of lending false credibility to the concept. I'm starting to think the best option is merging this article with the book's article in some way, maybe as "Highly sensitive person" with a section on the book, maybe one for the website(?), and one on SPS. I imagine there's a lot of overlap in the fluff and undue weight in both articles now that needs to be removed per NPOV and wp:promo, and if we stick to independent, reliable sources without being redundant, it's really hard for me to imagine that the content would necessitate two articles. —PermStrump(talk) 19:38, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Permstrump has kinda crystallized my thoughts here. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:17, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

OK, convergence is good (thanks for clarifying your background PermStrump). So there is one review in pubmed (by Aron) for "Sensory processing sensitivity" and the same one for "Highly sensitive person". I can't see how we can justify even one article. It really seems that we should merge both articles to a single paragraph in Personality psychology. Fwiw I recently wrangled Misophonia to the ground, wresting that article from advocates and practitioners. (that article might even be too long). These "sensitivity" articles have kind of proliferated in WP. Permstrump, are you aware of any "independent" sources on SPS or HSP (by independent I assume you mean not by Aron or an acolyte)... Jytdog (talk) 21:29, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not understanding why this topic in Personality Psychology is being (apparently) held up to a MEDRS standard. With [ hundreds of relevant journal cites ], SPS doesn't seem to be a minority or fringe view in the sense of mainstream researchers refuting or trivializing the SPS concept. Lay reference coverage is non-trivial (Psychology Today, Wall St. Journal, Scientific American etc., not just Huff Post). There are still 26 (est.) non-Aron references cited and Permstrump was able to add three new secondary references in his first pass circa 18 May. Maybe removal of improper wp:primary sourcing should occur before deciding moving/merging. —RCraig09 (talk) 00:50, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

...and would you really consider posting the Huff Po one here, so we can check that it's not WP:PROMO for her book for instance? Or given that you believe SPS need not actually be MENTIONED in the source; how many of the sources you're talking about are both not written by undergraduates of Aron AND not WP:PROMO for her book AND are explicitly discussing Aron's terms which are after all what this article supposedly covers. See what happened below (all in bold) with 'Wolf 2008' to get what I'm talking about [hint: he doesn't use her terms at all]. --Jobrot (talk) 01:34, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Editors will look more and more closely as they see problems, and step further and further back when sources are accurately represented. That's the nature of testing for accuracy on Wikipedia; and this article has had ongoing issues revealed about it. From the fact that the "science name" SPS is also an Aron term (even though neither Aron has a background in neurology), to the question of "100 other species" being "Highly Sensitive People" (a theory which appeared in the article when it had that title at least), to the revelation that Aron attended Maharishi University of Management in the 70s (and may have got her qualifications there) which is now just a managerial school but still asks students to perform Transcendental Meditation for its "consciousness-based education" system. There have just been some continuing issues. So we look closer. That's just the way it has to be. --Jobrot (talk) 02:53, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Rcraig it is matter of NPOV more than anything. Jytdog (talk) 02:21, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Hey Jytdog, Misophonia looks beeeautiful. WTG! Like I always say, WP:LessIsMore. (This is the first time I did the caps in a way that redirected to a real essay instead of a redlink. I didn't know it was a real thing.) I'm pretty sure these are independent sources.[1][2][3][4] They're all primary research though and I question if the last one is independent, but I don't have any real concrete reasons. One of the authors, Mailloux, got her PhD at Stonybrook where Mr. Aron is a professor. It doesn't seem like he was her advisor though. I'm pretty sure the only "review" articles were conducted by the Arons and IMO they misrepresent what these authors were saying, because while they don't straight up call HSP bullshit, they also don't really support the Arons' findings. People can email me if they want me to send a PDF of any of the articles behind a paywall. —PermStrump(talk) 03:18, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Jobrot: To clarify, I forget where Aron got her PhD, but it wasn't Maharishi University. She and her husband were both professors there in the 1970s, which I'm pretty sure was when she only had a bachelors actually and then later she went back and got a masters and later a PhD (I did this research back at the time I posted about this FTN though, which was at least a few weeks ago—maybe months—so now I'm just going off of memory). The part that I couldn't verify independently was whether she was actually ever a professor anywhere else. The WP article doesn't really do Maharishi University or Transcendental Meditation (TM) justice. TM is essentially a New Age cult invented by Maharishi Yogi, who had a lot of wealthy and some highly educated followers (including Deepak Chopra), so he started a university that somehow got and maintained its accreditation. TM has a huuuuuuge web of WP articles that are "well"-maintained by what I assume are paid editors. —PermStrump(talk) 03:30, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Ah, okay. Yeah, the "About Our Founder" link takes prominent place on the university's website. Thanks for clarifying some of the details. --Jobrot (talk) 04:51, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Blanking the cross-species incidence section

As far as I could tell what's happened here is that Aron is referencing wolf in a paper here as discussing "A functionally similar trait—termed responsivity, plasticity, or flexibility" - however Aron claiming Wolf's concept under a different set of terms DOES NOT equate to Wolf backing up Aron and it's disingenuous for the encyclopedia to give that appearance (or to claim that any of the three terms listed are all the same thing). This may mark a period of me cleaning up that which has no proof or reliable sourcing as per WP:RS. --Jobrot (talk) 01:22, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

(sigh) Hopefully it is obvious that SPS need not be literally quoted by a source. Anyone who has put in the time to understanding the SPS concept knows that it is a trait in which one subpopulation's responsiveness/susceptibility/reactivity/sensitivity/etc. to environmental stimuli is higher than another subpopulation's, a concept that different researchers have, of course, named differently over the years.

- Specifically pertinent to sourcing: if you read even the first page of Wolf 2008, you will see that Aron & Aron 1997 (reference 15) is cited repeatedly:

• "Many researchers believe that a fundamental factor structuring personality differences is the degree to which individual behavior is guided by environmental stimuli (6–8, 12–21)."
• "Such differences in responsiveness (also termed coping style, reactivity, flexibility, plasticity) have been documented in many organisms including ... humans (15, 16)]."
• "The finding that humans and other primates differ in their susceptibility to environmental influences (15, 16) might also be interpreted along these lines."

These passages in Wolf 2008 demonstrate explicit acceptance of Aron's application of the concept to humans in the same way as others have applied the concept in >100 other species. It would show constructive collaboration if you replaced at least the content referenced to Wolf 2008.

- Acevedo/Aron 2014 does not support your speculative suspicion of Aron subsequently "claiming Wolf's concept". Please stick to what the references say as I have here, so that notice boards, edit histories and talk pages don't continue to explode, pointlessly, with walls of arguments about speculative suspicions of "what's happened here." Please. —RCraig09 (talk) 03:01, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Hopefully it is obvious that SPS need not be literally quoted by a source. No; that's not obvious at all and goes against my understanding of having a coherent terminology. It basically holds the door open for you to claim that anything using any of those said terms is some how relevant, which is obviously disingenuous. It's not a matter of something being cited in another paper - it's also a question of what is said about a citation: You have to cite someone if you're DISAGREEING with them too (not claiming that to be the case here of course). The citation happens because one paper was quoted or referenced by another paper. The job of an editor is to go in; READ what the author/s were saying, and determine how what is SAID in or about the source in question relates to the CLAIMS of the source being used to back up facts (or quotes) on the page. In my reading; I did not see this (even if the term was there; I'd still have to read what is being SAID about it). But then again I'm not viewing all terms around the general concept of sensitivity as backing up SPS or HSP; because to me anyways - that's not how linguistics or science works. Science seeks to define, reduce and corner a concept to a highly quantifiable and mechanistic determination of what something is (hence tests, validations and experiments). It's not a general "associative" way of thinking; and nor is Wikipedia editing like that. --Jobrot (talk) 03:11, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

(sigh, another tangent) Expressed by Wolf 2008, the fact remains that there are many names for the same concept despite science's goal of common terminology. The above quotations (esp. #2) from Wolf 2008, here functioning as an independent secondary reference, do clearly support the deleted content: "...something similar to the trait is present in over 100 other species". —RCraig09 (talk) 04:16, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

That is simply NOT a quote/claim made in Wolf, 2008 - and I no longer have any confidence in your understanding of how WP:RS/AC sourcing works. --Jobrot (talk) 04:30, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes it is: Wolf repeatedly cites Aron's 1997 work as one example of the trait concept that is documented across species by numerous researchers under various names. And flattery will not dissuade me. —RCraig09 (talk) 05:05, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

numerous researchers under various names - yes I too can confirm that there are words in the document (many names of many concepts), and I can even go further and agree that psychologists most definitely have studied different characteristics of sensitivity in humans and animals (as some of these studies are about, Wolf for instance references Aron to state that sensitivity as a general concept exists in primates such as humans). No one is denying that the concept of sensitivity exists it's just a question of how a legitimate the research is; and what it ACTUALLY says (and hence can be quoted as saying). --Jobrot (talk) 05:17, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

To put it in other terms; Wolf citing Aron to state that sensitivity exists in humans, is not the same as Wolf citing Aron to state that Sensory Processing Sensitivity exists as legitimate and stand-alone concept. That is to say it does not confer any explanatory power or meaning to the phrase Sensory Processing Sensitivity within the discourse of Psychology. That is the current context for this article and is part of the considerations for WP:DUE and WP:NN for that matter; that's part of working out what is WP:PROMO in this case. No policy is meant to act alone - they inform each other. --Jobrot (talk) 05:23, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Hurdling over tangents like "conferring explanatory power or meaning... within the discourse of psychology" (?), you seem to imply that a WP editor's personal opinion about the illegitimacy of a concept trumps Wolf 2008's acceptance of the concept as legitimate, and across numerous other researchers. OK, got it. Thanks for increasing my "understanding of how WP:RS/AC sourcing works." —RCraig09 (talk) 06:46, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you got from within the discourse of psychology to WP editor's personal opinions - I suppose if a WP editor was well versed enough in the discourse of psychology (as per WP:EXPERT). Anyways, clearly we interpret sources and policies differently. Luckily we're not the only two editors on Wikipedia. --Jobrot (talk) 10:09, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Your "personal opinion" referred to your unsourced insinuations re legitimate research (at 05:17) and legitimate concept (at 05:23), as distinguished from Wolf 2008's multiple references to Aron & Aron 1997. —RCraig09 (talk) 13:32, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

As stated earlier; the fact they both believe in sensitivity as a general concept is not indicative of them both talking about the same thing. They are in fact using different terms. Likewise; that one citation may reference another is not indicative of the two authors agreeing. Sources have to be read and accurately interpreted - we can't just choose to apply our own preferred word or term if it doesn't appear in the document. --Jobrot (talk) 14:12, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

"Read and accurately interpreted," Wolf 2008 first page repeatedly cites Aron's 1997 SPS paper "Sensory-Processing Sensitivity and its Relation to Introversion and Emotionality" as being among references using different names for the equivalent concept. It's not "sensitivity as a general concept" and it's not "our preferred word." Before posting another syllable, please seriously consider whether you honestly understand the material in this article. Please. Seriously. —RCraig09 (talk) 14:49, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Stop being combative, making false accusations and being condescending. It's annoying and you're showing a general lack of WP:GOODFAITH. As stated earlier; Wolf 2008 cites Aron exactly two times in adjacent paragraphs as proof that sensitivity the general concept exists in Primates and Humans. Nothing more, and nothing less. Wolf certainly DOES NOT use any of Aron's terms explicitly, and the paper makes no other suggestion that Wolf's concept of sensitivity in relation to "sensory machinery" relates to "sensory processing sensitivity" in mechanism nor terms (accuracy is a factor of good interpretation, we can't just pluck terms out and exchange because we have opinions on the matter. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of facts). This is the second time you've misquoted Wolf (he simply does not use her terms. Look and look, you will not find them in there). So unless you have a quote you can pull out that indicates something OTHER THAN Sensitivity_(general) is being discussed I suggestion you WP:Drop_the_stick_and_back_slowly_away_from_the_horse_carcass --Jobrot (talk) 15:45, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Factually, and once and for all, I never stated Wolf 2008 quoted the exact term "SPS" and he need not do so explicitly in text — as I quoted above at 03:01, Wolf three times explicitly cites Aron's 1997 article (Wolf's reference 15) that defines SPS and has SPS in its title. And one more time, please understand: neither Wolf nor Aron write about sensitivity (general), they both write about the same trait in which one subpopulation's responsiveness/susceptibility/reactivity/sensitivity/etc to environmental stimuli is higher than another subpopulation's within the same species, a trait/concept that Wolf demonstrates is differently named by different researchers. —RCraig09 (talk) 16:27, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

and he need not do so explicitly in text here I disagree as you know. Sorry; what we put on Wikipedia must COME FROM THE SOURCES, and not be our own WP:OR research/opinion... also Aron's reference comes along side 6 others. It's not special, and none of the others use Aron's terms either (and guess what, they DO have to otherwise the doors are open for you to put in ANYTHING that uses the term sensitivity even if it relates to electrical arcs, or physics or something like that. Nope, sorry to construct and article around an idea/concept/thing you have refer to that idea/concept/thing specifically. Or else Wikipedia would be a complete farce. This is an encyclopedia of facts and evidence, not a WP:SOAPBOX for opinions and heralded terms of individual editors such as yourself (or myself for that matter). --Jobrot (talk) 16:39, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

You even stated they're discussing the Sensitivity_(general) general concept further up the page: "see general concept in Wolf 2008" (you can't have your cake and eat it too) - Wolf does not use the terms SPS or HSP, nor does he devote any special acknowledgment or express a special connection to Aron & Aron's terms/work (other than that they both agree sensitivity as a general concept exists in both Primates and Humans; that's the extent to which the reference and hence Aron's participation is used by Wolf, nothing central, just brief confirmation [there are in fact 7 sources sighted in the same sentence along side Aron each concerning different species and ending in Primates and Humans and (in line with Wolf) none of the others use Aron's terms either they're all discussing a general sensitivity, not even the secondary source Wolf is using for Aron, namely Belsky, 2007 uses Aron's terms. NONE of them do - BECAUSE THAT'S NOT THE POINT OF THE REFERENCE NO MATTER HOW HARD YOU TRY TO MAKE IT APPEAR SO!] Again this is a case of trying to use other terms to back Aron's special terms which are connected to her WP:PROMO activities just as I argued in the AfD). It's not up to you to put words or favoured terms/concepts into a source's mouth. That's not the job of an competent editor, we report SPECIFIC views (never our own) and express general knowledge in between those specific views. We don't take a general concept (ie. sensitivity) and cloak it in special terminology as you are attempting via Wolf 2008 (whom to re itterate references authors other than Aron: Authors who ALSO don't use Aron's idiosyncratic terminology). So I seriously suggest you WP:DROPTHESTICK and back away from the Wolf, 2008. It actually goes AGAINST your case, and towards the Sensitivity_(general) case (that Aron's concept is nothing special, and is just a general concept of sensitivity not worthy of it's own page). --Jobrot (talk) 16:04, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Dealt with above at 16:27. I intend no further argument with you on this issue, and my silence does not indicate capitulation to your arguments. Good bye. —RCraig09 (talk) 16:33, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm glad policy can prevail. --Jobrot (talk) 16:40, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

WE can't do that because SPS is a specific term. However, if we created Sensitivity_(general) (as opposed to Sensitivity_(human) - hell then you could talk about every instance of the term "Sensitivity" in every human work ever. Would that be an option you'd be interested in? --Jobrot (talk) 14:15, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

No. SPS is a specific type of sensitivity: sensory processing sensitivity—whose definition you deleted from the lead! —RCraig09 (talk) 14:49, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I did no such thing; and your assertion that I did so is unfounded and you've provided no evidence. You need to be careful if you're going to accuse a fellow editor of vandalism. Show me the diff or retract your statemtent and apologize. --Jobrot (talk) 15:13, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

(sigh) The relevant diffs for your 20 April 2016 edits are here and again here. Contrary to your content's characterization, the high sensitivity of HSPs is not merely "associated with" high SPS, but in fact SPS is the definition denoting high sensitivity; further, you twice deleted critical definitional content that "sensory processing refers to what occurs as sensory information is transmitted to or processed in the brain.(ref name=AronAronJPSP1997/)." —RCraig09 (talk) 16:06, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I stand corrected, and dutifully apologize. That said, I wouldn't say any of the removed content is vital or as defining as you claim; "sensory processing refers to what occurs as sensory information is transmitted to or processed in the brain" I personally wouldn't call that a definition - seems kind of general knowledge to me. Where else is sensory information processing going to happen? Not a particularly defining characteristic. Seems a bit unnecessary, but feel free to put it back in if you believe it's vital. No biggie; I'm not opposed to the rather general information that sensory processing happens in our nerves and brains. --Jobrot (talk) 16:56, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

- I'll note that consensus is on my side; across multiple notice boards and the AfD. That consensus is clean up. --Jobrot (talk) 03:24, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

But clean carefully and thoughtfully, please. —RCraig09 (talk) 04:16, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I will clean within the parameters laid out by Wikipedia policy, common sense, and the consensus of other editors. Your concerns are noted, and as per WP:GOODFAITH I can assume that you also hold these same standards (including WP:RS) as important in relation to this article (should it hold its merit) as with any other. I don't intend anything here as a personal attack on anyone; but verifying sources in relation to dubious content is my interest. I hope you can support that and put it above any attachment you might feel to this article or the concepts and ideas there in (which must be measured with WP:DUE care in relation to the academic fields they concern); Thank you.--Jobrot (talk) 04:30, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Summary (re "Blanking the cross-species incidence section")

Though the plain language of Wolf is inherently clear enough to indicate SPS is one among many names for the same concept across species:

• Such differences in responsiveness (also termed coping style, reactivity, flexibility, plasticity) have been documented in many organisms including ... humans (citing Ref 15, Aron's 1997 article "Sensory-processing sensitivity and ... "), —Wolf 2008

Boterberg 2016's direct citation of Wolf 2008 is explicit in text:

• research in evolutionary biology provides evidence that the trait of SPS can be observed in over 100 nonhuman species in the form of sensitivity, responsiveness, plasticity and flexibility (Wolf, van Doorn, & Weissing, 2008). —Boterberg 2016

Please reconsider. I'm not inviting argument or tangents. —RCraig09 (talk) 03:00, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Removing image

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)

Where do we go from here?

So with the claim that HSP and SPS can be found in other species removed due to a lack of reliable sourcing; what exactly is the difference between this article and Sensory processing now (previously titled Sensitivity_(human))? Other than an overt and WP:UNDUE coverage of Aron's views that can already be found elsewhere on Wikipedia. I feel having multiple articles is probably a bit much. Where do we go from here? --Jobrot (talk) 05:48, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

as a first step i think the book article can be merged into this one. Jytdog (talk) 15:19, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps after that some of the stuff from here can be merged into Sensory processing (in it's own section), and it might be a good idea to put something from Sensory Processing Disorder in a section there too. --Jobrot (talk) 10:31, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

I dunno, putting anything from here into Sensory processing seems like a big pile of WP:UNDUE. Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:29, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Agree with Jytdog, that some of the book article's content can be merged here, and the book article can then be replaced with a redirect. (FYI, the book article stalled since it was hard in 2012+ to isolate the effect of the 1995 book itself from hundreds of subsequent articles.) —RCraig09 (talk) 02:36, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Initial Proposal: Reducing the amount of article text, especially if referenced solely to Aron, in the manner of my recent edits (including compression of the former "Measuring sensitivity" section into a single sentence). This complex material is still somewhat fresh in my mind from my Jan-Feb overhaul, and I'm willing to work on this long process a little bit at a time. It can't be a blitzkrieg radical Aron-ectomy, but rather a put-Aron's-work-in-context process. Then reassess. Let's keep any comments concise and without tangents. —RCraig09 (talk) 02:33, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

•  Done i merged the book article here. Jytdog (talk) 03:28, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
• Update, early 2016-06-24: I've finished compressing the article body (by about two-thirds), placing Aron-based content in context (mainly by explicitly identifying that content as being Aron's assertions or writings etc., and moving some of her content from body to footnotes where it's less dominant for the lay reader), and reducing primary sourcing (tempered by WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD). Though I personally would have liked to see more details, this article now presents a minimalist view of the important issues. —RCraig09 (talk) 05:09, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

SPS 101

Having read Aron's 1996 book in 2012 and overhauled this article in Jan-Feb 2016, I offer the following understanding of SPS, which was apparently lost in the word walls above.

1. The concept has had various terms adopted by different researchers working independently, including what Wolf 2008 surveys as terms including: coping style, reactivity, flexibility, plasticity, with Wolf himself calling it responsiveness. Wolf's ref [15] cites Aron's 1997 "SPS..." article as documenting the concept in humans (accord, Boterberg 2016).
2. Simplified in my words: the concept is a specific personality trait in which one subpopulation's responsiveness/susceptibility/reactivity/sensitivity/etc. to environmental stimuli is higher than another subpopulation's in the same species. Aron's SPS is sensory processing sensitivity; not sensitivity in general. Individuals scoring above the high-20% breakpoint on the Highly Sensitive Person Scale (HSPS) are in the highly sensitive person (HSP) category.
3. SPS is not autism, sensory processing disorder, sensory overload, Amplification (psychology), avoidant personality disorder, or differential susceptibility hypothesis (mentioned by other editors), though SPS has been "related to" both positive and negative life results.
4. For WP purposes, sensory processing sensitivity is used in hundreds of journal articles and would not find a proper home at Sensory Processing Disorder, in the vague traits of Sensitivity (human) or Sensitivity (general), or in Sensory processing.

A clear understanding is needed before substantive editing here, and I hope this summary helps. Let's keep comments concise and without tangents. —RCraig09 (talk) 02:40, 20 June 2016 (UTC) supplemented RCraig09 (talk) 12:53, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand what you are talking about here. When you write "SPS" what do you mean? Jytdog (talk) 03:19, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Sensory processing sensitivity, the topic of the article. —RCraig09 (talk) 03:24, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Ah OK. When I see SPS I think WP:SPS. So in pubmed there are 13 article here for "sensory processing sensitivity". One of them is a review. And in PscyNet I got four hits on that phrase. So where are these hundreds of articles? (not rhetorical) Jytdog (talk) 03:42, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Currently (2016-06-20) 388 results on a scholar.google.com search, including 307 articles citing Aron's 1997 JPSP journal article. This topic is about a trait in personality psychology, not a disorder that would be associated with medicine per se. —RCraig09 (talk) 13:11, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Authorship investigation

I’ve started investigating Permstrump’s COI/vested-interest concerns at RSN “Take 2”. From that discussion (Permstrump, Jbhunley, et moi) it appears there is no evidence of academic dishonesty to indicate Arthur Aron was on the particular journal committee that reviewed their HSP work for publication.

I’ve gone further, and correlated the Arons’ graduate students and collaborators listed at their website, with authors cited in this WP article. The evidence indicates (see expandable text below) that none of the article’s NON-Aron references were authored by people affiliated with the Arons on their website.

User:Permstrump, can you demonstrate, with evidence, which of the article’s 24 (est.) non-Aron references you thought might not in fact be independent? This information could be critical in dealing with sourcing in this article. —RCraig09 (talk) 02:48, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Click at right to show/hide authorship analysis

Study of authorship attributed to individuals listed at http://www.psychology.stonybrook.edu/aronlab-/ The “Interpersonal Relationships Lab” at Stony Brook University (New York). Below, listed individuals are compared to authorship of the Wikipedia article’s references cited as of June 17, 2016. Co-authorships are noted, and individuals who haven’t authored any sources cited in the article have “(none)” written after their names. Finding: As of June 17, 2016, none of the listed people were the authors of cited articles independent of the Arons. Conclusion: None of the NON-Aron references cited were authored by people affiliated with the Arons on their website. —— “Graduate Students”: Jadzia Jagiellowicz Research: temperament (sensory processing sensitivity); fMRI (first-named author, with 2 Arons, “SPS and neural responses to changes in visual scenes" (2011) and co-author with 2 Arons, “SPS: A review …” (2012) Natalie Nardone Research: self-expansion and military marriages, unrequited love, self-concept clarity, self-knowledge and attraction (none) —— “Former Graduate Students”: Bianca Acevedo Graduated 2008 Post-Doctoral Researcher, Albert Einstein College of Medicine (NY) (first-named author, with 2 Arons, “… an fMRI study of SPS and response to others’ emotions” (2014) Kristin Davies Graduated 2009 (co-author with 2 Arons, “Adult Shyness: … adverse childhood environment” (2005) Barbara Fraley Graduated 1999 (none) Sarah Ketay Graduated 2007 Visiting Assistant Professor of Psychology, Bard College (NY) (co-author with 2 Arons, “… SPS moderates cultural differences …” (2010) Gary Lewandowski Graduated 2002 Assistant Professor of Psychology, Monmouth University (NJ) (none) Debra Mashek Graduated 2002 Assistant Professor of Psychology, Harvey Mudd College (CA) (none) Tracy McLaughlin-Volpe Graduated 2005 Assistant Professor of Communication Sciences and Disorders, Emerson College (MA) (none) Suzanne Riela Graduated 2011 (none) Jodie Steele Graduated 1999 (none) Gregory Strong Graduated 2008 (none) Jennifer Tomlinson Graduated 2010 Post-Doctoral Researcher, Carnegie Mellon University (PA) (none) Irene Tsapelas Graduated 2011 (none) Xiaomeng (Mona) Xu Graduated 2011 Post-Doctoral Researcher, Brown University (RI) (co-author with 2 Arons, “SPS and neural responses to changes in visual scenes" (2011) ——— “Collaborators”: Bianca Acevedo (Einstein Coll of Medicine) (above) Lucy Brown (Einstein Coll of Medicine) (co-author with 2 Arons, “… an fMRI study of SPS and response to others’ emotions” (2014) Turhan Canli (Stony Brook) (none) Jennifer Eberhardt (Stanford) (none) Helen Fisher (Rutgers) (none) John Gabrieli (MIT) (co-author with 2 Arons, “… SPS moderates cultural differences …” (2010) Dara Ghahremani (UCLA) (none) James Gross (Stanford) (none) Trey Hedden (MIT) (co-author with 2 Arons, “… SPS moderates cultural differences …” (2010) Julian Keenan (Montclair State U) (none) Sarah Ketay (Mt Sinai School of Medicine) (above) Gary Lewandowski (Monmouth U) (none) Hazel Markus (Stanford) (co-author with 2 Arons, “… SPS moderates cultural differences …” (2010) Debra Mashek (Harvey Mudd) (none) Tracy McLaughlin-Volpe (Emerson College) (none) Tom Pettigrew (UC Santa Cruz) (none) Suparna Rajaram (Stony Brook) (none) Harry Reis (U Rochester) (none) Caryl Rusbult (Free University, Amsterdam) (none) Greg Strong (Florida State University) (none) Linda Tropp (U Mass) (none) Lee Westmaas (American Cancer Society and Emory University) (none) Stephen Wright (Simon Fraser University) (none)

(end of collapsible text) —RCraig09 (talk) 02:48, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

As I've stated previously, completely unrelated to potential academic dishonesty, the publications by the Aron's aren't independent because of their conflict of interest being the originators of the term having a book by the same name. See WP:INDY —PermStrump(talk) 19:53, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Understood, User:Permstrump. Here I was only asking about the possibility of references not authored by Arons still (somehow) not being independent. It looks like I read too much into your wp:RSN comments. —RCraig09 (talk) 20:49, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Sorry I misunderstood too. The independent sources that I mentioned in a previous thread weren't meant to be exhaustive. Those were just the ones I was aware of at that moment because I had them bookmarked or they were already cited in the article. I'm definitely open to the possibility that there are others. —PermStrump(talk) 21:09, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Savantism

Have any studies been done with respect to savantism and highly sensitive people? It would be interesting to see how those areas correlate here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.139.254.117 (talk) 19:17, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

I think there have been studies noting some correlation between high SPS and creativity, but I doubt we'll ever read anything affirmatively linking SPS to Savant syndrome. SPS identifies a personality trait and doesn't involve a developmental disability, and SPS might even be described as indicating the opposite of a developmental disability. SPS has continually been wrongly confused with many things. —RCraig09 (talk) 19:55, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Not an expert or anything, but don't necessarily see savantism as a developmental disability. Nor do I see SPS as an ability. I see them more as biological dispositions of the brain architecture, and I can easily see how excess "ability" can lead to functional impairment. This may be entirely unsupported by the facts, however. Which is why I'm interested in the facts. 75.139.254.117 (talk) 06:44, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Add Content from Studies

Under the existing title "Attributes, Characteristics, and Prevalence," there was a brief mention about how SPS has been distinguished from disorders, and how research has included and/or distinguished SPS from other labels. Perhaps this page would benefit from a new section/heading that specifically provides info on studies regarding SPS versus disorders (differences and false similarities that would cause confusion). In Aron's book Psychotherapy and the Highly Sensitive Person... Aron states that the interpretation of the definition of "disorder" and the seemingly similar traits of SPS clients to those of many DSM disorders may have caused misdiagnosis in the past, and goes on to analyze why (or identifies the source) of this confusion.

From reading peer-review articles, it seems that much research has been centered around SPS in relation to personalities and other characteristics. Because relationships between SPS to other traits/characteristics are so important to the context of SPS in psychology, this Wikipedia article could benefit from additional studies that prove these associations, while keeping a balance between the positive and negative. Since there are both advantages and disadvantages for SPS, as already mentioned and cited in this Wikipedia article, it would benefit to show this with a correct positive/negative balance of specific data that allow readers to see for themselves that this is true. One example of an association can be found in the peer-review article "The Highly Sensitive Person: Stress and Physical Symptom Reports," in which SPS has been correlated to physical health symptoms, though this study did not show a causation. The article also noted that the relationship between SPS and physical symptoms was not dependent on self-rated stress levels. I find it important to add these correlations onto the Wikipedia page (while emphasizing that correlations don't imply causations) because of all seemingly multiplicity of studies that have gone into trying to link or distinguish SPS from other traits, characteristics, disorders, or other areas of life. In other words, adding studies/results that show the relationship between SPS and specific (dis)advantages would more strongly reinforce the idea that the scientific world recognizes both advantages and disadvantages to this trait.

To expand on the description of SPS, we could emphasize and elaborate that SPS is a trait subdivided into 3 parts: 1)Aesthetic Sensitivity, 2) Low Sensory Threshold 3) Ease of Excitation, using the peer-review article "A psychometric evaluation of the Highly Sensitive Person Scale...." This article describes the study that led to these subfactors within the HSP scale.

Other areas we could improve on include reorganizing information under new headings. For example, the mention of brain function and genetics studies under the heading "Prevalence" could be moved to a different section titled "HSP in Various Research Areas." The body of information under "Prevalence" could instead expand on its current topic sentence that SPS is found in an abundance of non-human species. This way, the information listed under headings would be more relevant to the title of the heading.

In addition, Aron's book "Psychotherapy and the Highly Sensitive Person..." offers details about how Aron conducted her original research, including the demographics of her sample and how she polled volunteers for her research. This could be used to add more specifics under the heading "Origin and Development of the Terms" MissAndrea (talk) 08:20, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

References

MissAndrea, thank you for your many thoughtful comments. I agree with most of what you say, but this article has had a long history. Some Wikipedia editors raised issues in 2016 that caused this article to be shorter, such as by consolidating content or moving content from the body to footnotes. Also, some primary sources were removed, in favor of (preferable) secondary sources. The article was shortened, to avoid giving readers the impression that the concept has more mainstream scientific approval than some editors perceive that it does (though the Arons' 1997 scientific paper has been cited by over >300 scientific papers). Also, because of their sales of books and courses, the works of Drs. Aron are not considered by some to be adequately objective for Wikipedia purposes, and their statements must be put in context and not simply cited as authoritative. For these reasons (not all of which I agree with), many of your helpful suggestions would probably not fit community consensus here. However, when I have time I will consider your thoughtful suggestions and new citations. Thanks, and good luck on your project. —RCraig09 (talk) 17:13, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Note to posterity, re links in citations etc.

After a 26 July 2019 tool-based edit, many links in footnotes were eliminated or changed. I'm not saying the changes are wrong (too massively labor-intensive to verify), but FYI the earlier citations are preserved in this version. —RCraig09 (talk) 21:47, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

<Introduction> Regarding addition of celebrity names who are HSP

Dear Wikipedia Team, I suggest addition of below section to <Introduction>. Please let me know if this makes sense. Thanks.

Albert Einstein, Nicole Kidman, Jim Hallowes, Greta Garbo, Katharine Hepburn, Spencer Tracy, Judy Garland and Martin Luther King Jr are some famous personalities that are highly sensitive (HSP). "Highly Sensitive and Creative". Retrieved 2020-09-15.

I appreciate the intent. However, after discussions in (mainly) 2016, the content of this article has been rather strictly limited to what's asserted in technical or medical papers. Whether historical figures and celebrities meet the HSP definition is conjectural or anecdotal, even if it's from Dr. Aron's website, so it's probably not appropriate here. —RCraig09 (talk) 18:23, 15 September 2020 (UTC)