Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diamond of opposites
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was no consensus. W.marsh 23:34, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Diamond of opposites[edit]
...Delete...The term "diamond of opposites" does not appear in major academic databases covering the topics of psychometrics, education, psychology, or medicine. It appears to be unpublished research and therefore not appropriate for wikipedia. Nesbit 17:32, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]...Delete.... According to this doctor's homepage profile, she is the inventor of diamonds of opposites [1] "My research focus continues to shift. 'Measuring Co-existing Opposites', my doctoral thesis (1992) led to the development of the method of the 'diamond of opposites' to assess change in patterns of processes based on the opposites within. I'm involved in developing methods to study creativity (novelty and variability in processes represented by time series data." No claim is made that the theory has any great acceptance, or is even practiced by anyone but herself. However, a google search does reveal some other individuals using the method [2]. Nevertheless, appears new and not widespread enough for notability standard. May be a good candidate for article in future. --Fuhghettaboutit 18:10, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Removing My Vote Entirely. I am no longer sure delete is appropriate based on Nesbit's research below. By the same token, I not sure this is sufficient for keep. Do not count my vote. --Fuhghettaboutit 18:06, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, original research —This user has left wikipedia 18:21 2006-02-05
- Delete per WP:NOR. --Kinu 18:47, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Fuhgettaboutit. Were it not for "some other individuals using the method", I would cite WP:BALLS. Barno 20:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable psychometrics and gimmicky - appears like a multidimensional approach to scaling dressed up as something else without any indication of how it is used. Poor standards, no citations, very questionable notability. Holon 01:29, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep ... change of vote based on verification, better categorization, and clarification. Holon 05:10, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Will try to find references for this in next 2 days. Lakinekaki 03:47, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed my vote to Keep on the basis of the following content I found in one of the references that Lakinekaki has now supplied in the article. I now believe that the method is a rarely used but interesting assessment method that is sufficiently notable for a wikipedia article. It did not show up in my original search of psychinfo because the term did not appear in the title, abstract or keywords, only in the full text. To summarize: offbeat but valid. Nesbit 06:05, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Carlson-Sabelli et al. (1992) and Carlson-Sabelli, Sabelli, and Hale (1994) have criticized the traditional sociometric measurement for (a) focusing on choices and ignoring why choices are made, (b) treating opposites (choice versus rejection and indifference) as mutually exclusive categories or as the opposite ends of a continuum (i.e., love and hate toward the same person can coexist resulting in push and pull processes operating simultaneously), and (c) using a linear scale whereby choices are rank ordered from least to most. Carlson-Sabelli et al. (1994) described a sociodynamic approach that uses the traditional nomination procedure (with or without ranking) along with the measurement of opposite processes of attraction and repulsion via the "plane phase of opposites"--or less technically "the diamond of opposites"--toward a person, activity, or opinion (p. 162). The diamond of opposites can be used to gather data in writing or in action. To use it in action, draw a large diamond in the center of a room and ask group members to place themselves within the marked areas of the diamond in a location that best reflects the intensity of their combined positive and negative feelings toward a significant other.
In Carlson-Sabelli et al.'s (1994) scheme, the bottom vertex of the diamond represents indifferent, neutral, or zero feelings, and the top vertex represents contradictory, ambiguous feeling characterized by intense but opposite (equally positive and negative) feeling. Thus, the area within the diamond of opposites is divided into four quadrants: (a) bottom (weak feelings of both attraction and repulsion), (b) top (strong contradictory feelings of both attraction and repulsion), (c) left (attraction), and (d) right (repulsion) (see Figure 1).
According to Carlson-Sabelli et al. (1994), the diamond can be used to prepare interpersonal profiles for a variety of criteria such as harmony-conflict, approach-avoidance, and attraction-repulsion represented as opposite axes of separate diamonds. Respondents are asked to rank order their significant others in terms of how much time the respondent (a) wishes to spend with their significant others (ideal rank order) and (b) actually spends with their significant others (actual rank order). Next, they locate their significant others by marking points in each of the diamonds (harmony-conflict, attraction-repulsion, and approach-avoidance) first to indicate the actual rank order and second to indicate the ideal rank order. Connecting the dots within each diamond provides interpersonal profiles (for criteria of interest) for significant relationships, which can then be compared. Carlson-Sabelli et al. mentioned that their approach can be used in conjunction with the SNI (Treadwell et al., 1993) to determine social distances. (See Carlson-Sabelli et al., 1992, 1994, for more information on the mathematics of the sociodynamic approach.)
- The article and quote considered in combination indicate a highly confused use of two continua to form two-dimensional space. I have explained why on Talk:Diamond_of_opposites. No citations indicate the 'diamond of opposites' has received any recognition in psychometric literature as a scaling method. I have removed it from psychometrics category. If it has sufficient notability as a method in psychodrama (and I have no comment on this), then it should be presented as that, not a scaling method in psychometrics. The fact that it was placed in the category of psychometrics suggests to me it should be deleted. Holon 11:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I placed it in the category of psychometrics because I thought it belonged there (referenced journals mention the category of sociometry - I tought its the same category). I don't know much about psychometrics, so if you say that its not used there, I have no objection to your removing of the category. Lakinekaki 16:13, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Holon, you did not understand how responses are plotted. I added the picture in the article to make things more clear. Responses are added as vectors. Lakinekaki 16:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I just found out that "Diamond of opposites" technique is included in the test for becoming psychodramatist in the US. It is used as sociometry measure. I think that this does make this entry notable enough for Wikipedia article and for inclusion in the scaling methods and psychometrics category (psychodrama after all deals with psychology!). Lakinekaki 19:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I previously removed it from the Educational psychology category because it has never been used in peer-reviewed educational psychology research. But editing the categories is a very different matter from deletion. Also, I'm not sure it is useful to debate the quality of the idea itself as a way to decide deletion (omigod that would wipe out most of the articles on pop culture!) -- rather, the wikipedian question seems to be whether the method is notable enough to warrant an article. Prefering to err on the side of inclusion, seeing that it has been used in peer-reviewed research, and hoping to rehabilitate Lakinekaki into a great wikipedian ;-) I am sticking with my keep vote. Lakinekaki, perhaps you should post an external link to the certification information you mention above if it's on the web. I'd suggest a compromise where Lakinekaki commits to not categorizing the article as psychometric and removes the psychometric links in "See also" to persuade Holon to change his vote. By the way, I think the article is substantially better now, and could benefit from further improvement. Nesbit 19:58, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree Nesbit. So long as it's not represented as something it isn't, I have no problem with inclusion of this article. It should not be referred to as a scaling method or in the category of psychometrics without appropriate references. My reason for voting to delete is that it was unambiguously entered as a scaling method in the category of psychometrics, which creates serious doubt in my mind regarding knowledge of the subject matter. These doubts remain, but I'm quite happy to abstain from voting if your proposed compromise is satisfactory in Lakinekaki's mind (either that, or appropriate references are provided). Cheers. Holon 01:45, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I previously removed it from the Educational psychology category because it has never been used in peer-reviewed educational psychology research. But editing the categories is a very different matter from deletion. Also, I'm not sure it is useful to debate the quality of the idea itself as a way to decide deletion (omigod that would wipe out most of the articles on pop culture!) -- rather, the wikipedian question seems to be whether the method is notable enough to warrant an article. Prefering to err on the side of inclusion, seeing that it has been used in peer-reviewed research, and hoping to rehabilitate Lakinekaki into a great wikipedian ;-) I am sticking with my keep vote. Lakinekaki, perhaps you should post an external link to the certification information you mention above if it's on the web. I'd suggest a compromise where Lakinekaki commits to not categorizing the article as psychometric and removes the psychometric links in "See also" to persuade Holon to change his vote. By the way, I think the article is substantially better now, and could benefit from further improvement. Nesbit 19:58, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- As I said elsewhere, I exausted my modest knowledge on this subject. Dr. Sabelli told me she will read the article one of these days and improve it. I guess that she will provide references that are missing, and add/delete relevant links. Till then, take care, and please remove delete tag from the article. Lakinekaki
- Actually do not delete tag, it will be good if she reads this discussion. Lakinekaki
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.