The Free Dictionary  
mailing list For webmasters
Welcome Guest Forum Search | Active Topics | Members

brainstorming Options
Atatürk
Posted: Wednesday, November 7, 2018 1:48:46 PM
Rank: Newbie

Joined: 10/25/2018
Posts: 76
Neurons: 250
Originally, Peterson and Seligman tried to include all the possible behavioral abilities in their classification; some of the methods they used in that regard are: using the brainstorming of prominent figures in positive psychology, discussing with the participants of psychology conferences, studying texts on psychology, philosophy and related fields.

Is it a good sentence?
RuthP
Posted: Wednesday, November 7, 2018 5:11:24 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/2/2009
Posts: 5,148
Neurons: 57,079
Location: Drain, Oregon, United States
Atatürk wrote:
Originally, Peterson and Seligman tried to include all the possible behavioral abilities in their classification; some of the methods they used in that regard are: using the brainstorming of prominent figures in positive psychology, discussing with the participants of psychology conferences, studying texts on psychology, philosophy and related fields.

Is it a good sentence?

No. "Brainstorming of" is not good. It is not clear and unambiguous. "Brainstorming" is something a group of people does. I cannot tell from this who did the brainstorming. Were P & S part of the brainstorming sessions? Were they using information from brainstorming sessions that "prominent figures" participated in? (And if so, how did they get that information? And, how did they select the "prominent figures"?) Depending upon the meaning, "brainstorming with" or brainstorming sessions by" may be appropriate.

Then I wonder, discussing what with "participants of psychology conferences"? And, were these formal sessions at (a) conference(s), or did they just buttonhole people in the hall?

I also don't recognize "positive psychology" as a real thing, though it is not my area and it has been a long time since I've had any classes. I suppose it is possible there is a newly named branch of psych called "positive psychology". I am unaware of it.
Romany
Posted: Wednesday, November 7, 2018 5:34:01 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/14/2009
Posts: 14,529
Neurons: 45,380
Location: Brighton, England, United Kingdom
It's not at all bad, but there are one or two things which could be tweaked.

The first would be the length of the sentence. This means you have a semi-colon followed by a colon which something one tries to avoid. It can confuse the reader.

There is a a real need for a full stop after "classification". It's the introductory sentence which tells us what this is about: - Peterson & Seligmans' attempted to encompass all behavioural abilities within their classification. The following sentences should relate to this.

a) We don't brainstorm a person. We brainstorm WITH people. The first sounds as though we are attacking the person! "Brainstorming" is a participatory occupation: it means that metaphorically, peoples set their brains buzzing with ideas by bouncing them off each other. The make a perfect storm of ideas this way and find it hastens the creative process. So, unless they sat down with these prominant figures and together they all arrived at the classification Peterson and Seligman adopted, I wonder if you really mean "brainstorming"?

b) they had discusions with participants of conferences; and they did textual research.

However, all of these things are simply the ways one goes about accruing and applying knowledge. Peterson & Seligman didn't do anything any differently to anyone else. Indeed, had they not done these things their study wouldn't have come about. So I am unsure whether there is any reason for any of what follows after the word (and the full stop!) "classification."

EDITED to add: Ruth's post and mine crossed. But I see we are both pretty much on the same page here.
RuthP
Posted: Wednesday, November 7, 2018 5:35:13 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/2/2009
Posts: 5,148
Neurons: 57,079
Location: Drain, Oregon, United States
Geez Romany, you are much more forgiving than I.
Hope123
Posted: Wednesday, November 7, 2018 5:54:23 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 8,396
Neurons: 48,057
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
Hi Atatürk.

Maybe what you mean by "brainstorming" is using the information gleaned by "picking the brains" of prominent leaders in the field of psychology.

"Picking brains of experts" is my favourite pastime, but that may be too informal, depending upon for what the sentence is to be used.

"Using information gleaned after discussions with...". - or some such idea.

The past is to be respected/acknowledged, not worshipped. It is in our future we will find our greatness. Pierre Trudeau
RuthP
Posted: Wednesday, November 7, 2018 6:25:36 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/2/2009
Posts: 5,148
Neurons: 57,079
Location: Drain, Oregon, United States
Hope123 wrote:
Hi Atatürk.

Maybe what you mean by "brainstorming" is using the information gleaned by "picking the brains" of prominent leaders in the field of psychology.

"Picking brains of experts" is my favourite pastime, but that may be too informal, depending upon for what the sentence is to be used.

"Using information gleaned after discussions with...". - or some such idea.

Nice! I didn't think of that possibility.
Romany
Posted: Thursday, November 8, 2018 11:26:28 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/14/2009
Posts: 14,529
Neurons: 45,380
Location: Brighton, England, United Kingdom
Indeed - that's a far better way to say it, Hope. IF they actually had discussions with these people.

Because Ataturk hasn't come back to the thread after posting though, I think we need to find out exactly what he thinks "brainstorming" is?

Because I get the impression (probably from the non-academic presentation) that they didn't actually engage in lengthy debate and discussion with these "prominent figures." Had they done so the names of the people with whom they had conferred would be cited. Their contributions would be acknowledged. It's a recognisable ploy of those who are "embroidering" the truth to make statements as vague as "prominant figures" -a common "weasel-phrase".

But, atm the three of us are just preaching to the choir. Until the OP engages we're merely speculating.
Users browsing this topic
Guest


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS
Forum Terms and Guidelines | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2008-2018 Farlex, Inc. All rights reserved.