Talk:human behaviour

human behavior
SOP. PUC – 12:18, 15 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I wonder why the British spelling has been targeted by this user and not the American spelling. DonnanZ (talk) 14:12, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * When a term does not survive RfD and is deleted, then – unless the deleting admin is careless – alternative spellings go with it. --Lambiam 15:57, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, the nominator was careless, so the RFD should fail on a technicality. DonnanZ (talk) 16:03, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * : I've added the US spelling. Happy? PUC – 16:07, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I won't be supporting any RFD nominations by that user anyway. DonnanZ (talk) 17:08, 15 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete SoP. The current definition seems to imply a focus on consciousness by using the term decision-making. This implies what I thought was a very dated (pre-Plato) view of human behavior. Is such a view making another comeback? DCDuring (talk) 14:22, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. There are books on primate behaviour, or more generally animal behaviour; "human behaviour" is nothing but animal behaviour specialized to the species . --Lambiam 15:57, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment I think the justification was that as an academic discipline, "Human Behavior" has a meaning beyond that of "Human" + "Behavior". It was established in the Tea Room discussion that it is considered an academic discipline worthy of majoring in, at least in some colleges. I don't know if that in itself makes it worthy of inclusion, but we do have many other academic disciplines/fields of study that would otherwise be SoP: music theory, cultural anthropology, philosophy of science, food science, film studies, international relations. So I'm not saying "Keep", but I don't see how you can "Delete" and not also delete these and many other similar entries. Perhaps special rules should apply to fields of study that are a bit more generous than strict SoP would allow. --RDBury (talk) 02:35, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Generally, we consider each entry on its own merits. “Human behaviour” as an academic subject is concerned with the study of human behaviour. “Film studies” as an academic subject is not concerned with the study of film studies. --Lambiam 15:09, 16 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Specifically film studies is not about (say) the chemical composition of films, though you wouldn't know that if you'd never heard the term before. Equinox ◑ 23:57, 16 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I don't see the distinction you're trying to draw. "Music theory" is concerned with the theory of music, "Cultural anthropology" is concerned with the cultural aspects of anthropology, "Philosophy of science" is concerned with philosophy as applied to science, "Film studies" is concerned with the study of film, "International relations" is concerned with relations between nations; they all seem to be pretty tautologous statements. It's not totally clear that "film" means "cinema" but I think what is meant is what is understood. I'm not saying delete these entries, but I don't see how the reasons you're giving to delete "Human Behavior" don't apply to all these other cases. --RDBury (talk) 10:49, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Imagine that a group of scientists develop such an interest in water filtration that they organize an Annual Conference on Water Filtration, found academic journals Water Filtration and its competitor Intenational Journal of Water Filtration, and Nestlé endows a chair at a prestigious university, stipulating that they allow students to obtain a BS in "Water Filtration". The study proves popular, and other universities follow suit. Would this scenario engender a new sense of the collocation water filtration, namely “the study of processes for filtering water”? I should say not. The meaning of a term does not change by people taking an interest in it, and referring to “the study of ” just by “” is, IMO, standard metonymy that should not be lexicalized. --Lambiam 13:34, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I would be inclined to delete the entries for all the above-mentioned disciplines. "Topic + studies", for instance, is a typical way of forming the name of new disciplines. Cf. and, both of which are offered at my university, and neither of which we have. As for , I say delete. Being an academic discipline doesn't suddenly make it non-SOP. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 23:14, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I would keep and . Not sure about the others. But it's true I can't really articulate why right now. PUC – 13:03, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * There seems to be an impression that the examples I gave above were an exhaustive list, but they weren't meant to be. If it would be helpful I could try to create a full list, but the above were just a few examples to illustrate a point. --RDBury (talk) 02:43, 19 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment. To me the definition seems slightly strangely worded if it is supposed to refer to an academic discipline. Does "human behaviour" actually mean "The academic study of how ..."? Isn't it in fact the thing studied, rather than the action of studying? Also, is "human behaviour" limited to the study of how human beings make decisions ? Mihia (talk) 15:07, 7 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is the study, not just the behaviour itself. Found on Google: (i) "I took human behavior in the summer term and I loved it."; "In '99 I took human behavior as part of my psych degree program." Equinox ◑ 15:13, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I understand what kind of meaning is intended, but to me the definition seems off somehow. Isn't "the academic study of how ..." the thing that you do when you "take human behaviour", not the subject that you study? Or is it just me? Mihia (talk) 17:48, 7 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep both &mdash; Dentonius 08:16, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * RFD-deleted. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 08:17, 7 March 2021 (UTC)