Jump to content

Talk:Cognition

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

[edit]

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): Aqua1996.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:57, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

There are some links that make no sense in the context of this article. Specifically, there are links to leveling and sharpening which lead to land surveying and blade sharpening, respectively. I assume that these originally pointed to other links that were more relevant. The sharpening page has no disambiguation, so perhaps the original articles were moved? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mstachowsky (talk • contribs) 12:19, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

choices

[edit]

are choices (specifically those manifesting into an action) fall into the realm of cognition or "cognitive processes"? BriEnBest (talk) 12:09, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i'm sorry about my above post - i had not read all parts of the discussion when i posted it. I suppose choices do not fall under the realm of cognition (is this correct?). However, I am really interested in finding out more about how thinking becomes a choice (meaning one manifested in action). Thank you so much. BriEnBest (talk) 12:13, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not to be too trite about this, but the simple yes, we can is a choice. When one has decided 'no, I can't understand something', one has already forfeited one's role in a thought process; that one has automatically lost ones way in the labyrinth,in the race for an achievement. Thus motivation and attention are basic to this thought process. A simple guess is better than a despairing I give up. Why is this? -- it is because one can then think of some simple actions based on that guess, and get on with life. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 17:09, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Portable cameras and telephones

[edit]

We read:- Other concepts which seem to have arisen only recently (in the last century) include increased expectations for human rights. In this case, an example of an 'emergent behavior' might perhaps be the use of the mass media to publicize inequities in the human condition, perhaps using highly portable cameras and telephones.

Sorry but I do not understand how portable cameras and telephones would be used.Mikeo1938 (talk) 18:14, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suppose you have the opportunity to record the beating of someone weaker by someone stronger, and that you have a camera and phone. You could turn on the recorder, point it at the beating, and transmit that record to a news agency. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 17:12, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of subtopics that are too remote from topic

[edit]

I have deleted the following two subtopics from the end of the article because they are so remote from the topic of this article as to be irrelevant.

In a cultural context

[edit]
Earthrise
Earthrise

One famous image, Earthrise, taken during Apollo 8, the first Apollo mission to the Moon, shows planet Earth in a single photograph. Earthrise is now the icon for Earth Day, which did not arise until after the image became widespread. At this level, an example of an 'emergent behavior' might be concern for Spaceship Earth, as encouraged by the development of orbiting space observatories etc.

Other concepts which seem to have arisen only recently (in the last century) include increased expectations for human rights. In this case, an example of an 'emergent behavior' might perhaps be the use of the mass media to publicize inequities in the human condition, perhaps using highly portable cameras and telephones. --AlotToLearn (talk) 00:11, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The second subtopic I have removed was:

Example of emergent organization

[edit]

It is possible to find other examples of critical mass necessary to develop a concept. For example, a nascent coalition of individuals might fail in the implementation of some agreement among them; but in the words of Ward Cunningham, the inventor of the Wiki-wiki Web:

I thought there would be failure modes, but I wasn't surprised that communities found ways around them. I thought it was important that when the organization proved to be wrong, people could reorganize on their own, that organization could emerge.

In other words, when the organization adapted, the concept adapted and survived the incipient failure mode.

--AlotToLearn (talk) 00:16, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cognition template

[edit]

Is anyone else bothered by the "cognition" template? It seems like original research to me. Are there are any sources that claim that the essential topics associated with cognition are "Sentience", "Consciousness", "Sapience", "Self-awareness", "Concept" and "Cognitive linguistics". Please discuss on the talk page of the template. I think it should be removed. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 05:20, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you, and I've boldly removed the template. Not sure when it was added, or by who. Looie496 (talk) 00:43, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like it was added in November 2008 by User:Zahd, who had a not-so-shiny edit history. I don't know enough to judge whether this is a helpful template, but if it's not worth having on this article, it should probably be removed from other articles too. Dreamyshade (talk) 01:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since a few of us seem to agree that this template fails to list the central articles about "cognition", I have removed it and will move forward with a request for deletion. Please discuss at Template Talk:Cognition ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 02:27, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, this article is a little hard to understand because it is written so academically. I believe it could be revised to read a little simpler so more people would be able to understand the topic better.

17Awesome17 (talk) 23:48, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Citations

[edit]

The article has very few citations, I have placed tags on the article to make readers/writers aware. --Gnepets (talk) 04:15, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is this still the case? Seventeen doesn't seem so shabby. If not, should the article level tag now be removed? It seems to me that the article does need additional (specific) citations (I've just added a request for one myself!) but is the article now so poorly cited that it still deserves the flag? LookingGlass (talk) 09:34, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that it should be removed yet. There are a number of central ideas that are not supported yet. Not all that are there now are well-chosen. Kind regards, User:㓟 - (pi) (talk) 07:13, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, but then imo these instances should be highlighted more clearly in the text. Where are these central ideas that are not supported? What references are poorly chosen? Please provide some more in-line tags so that the issues can be more easily addressed. LookingGlass (talk) 12:27, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Ontology" section

[edit]

I have removed that section. It was unsourced and tagged as needing sources for months, and also doesn't have anything to do with cognition as I have learned about it. This section should not go back without having proper sources provided (I actually don't think it should go back at all). Looie496 (talk) 19:56, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

If that’s a TV, this must be the den; To the brain, scenes are sums of objects by Laura Sanders October 22nd, 2011; Vol.180 #9 (p. 16) Also related Knowledge. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 23:02, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This seem related, an excerpt ...

In mental terms, certain scenes are sums of their objects, researchers report online September 4 in Nature Neuroscience. The results help explain how people quickly and accurately recognize complicated scenes such as playgrounds, kitchens and traffic intersections. Much of what scientists know about vision comes from studies of how people see simple objects in isolation, such as a line floating on a white screen, says cognitive neuroscientist Dirk Bernhardt-Walther of Ohio State University. The new work, in contrast, deals with messy, real-world scenes. “It’s an awesome study,” he says.

99.181.138.228 (talk) 03:33, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't seem related, to me. But that's not an entirely absurd argument, so it probably shouldn't have been deleted. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:10, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Over the last couple of days this IP editor has added dozens of things like this to various talk pages. They're not useful, and it can't continue. Looie496 (talk) 15:55, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point. It would to be discussed at the VP, though, if a real editor would object; I don't think AN or ANI would help. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:39, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Abstract symbolic reasoning!

[edit]

From a reader's POV, I want to ask question: Section: Cognition#Piaget.27s_theory_of_cognitive_development. He believed that humans are unique in comparison to animals because we have the ability to do "abstract symbolic reasoning.". - what is "abstract symbolic reasoning"? Can you add a short description in the article? You can add a {{tb}} in my talk page! --Tito Dutta Message 04:54, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(cog)nosco

[edit]

Latin and Greek, as closely related Indo-European languages, share a common PIE vocabulary. There is no evidence that 'nosco' was 'borrowed' from the Greek, any more that the Gothic 'kunnan' was 'borrowed or that the Greek was 'borrowed' from the Sanskrit or the Persian. (Pamour (talk) 20:31, 4 July 2012 (UTC))[reply]

adding for a class

[edit]

I'm editing this page for my senior lab in Clemson University. A lot of my editing will focus on the history of cognitive psychology, a very brief one since there is already a cognitive psych page here on wikipedia. Also I think it would be beneficial to add some example cognitive experiments and the theories behind them. Perhaps it will spark interest in readers to further research the subject. Mshepha (talk) 14:42, 26 February 2013 (UTC)mshephaMshepha (talk) 14:42, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome Mshepha! Please remember that Wikipedia is not an academic paper or essay. Wikipedia articles should not be based on WP:primary sources, but on reliable, published secondary sources (for instance, journal reviews and professional or advanced academic textbooks) and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources (such as undergraduate textbooks). WP:MEDRS describes how to identify reliable sources for medical information, which is a good guideline for many psychology articles as well. With friendly regards, Lova Falk talk 15:58, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In my sandbox for this article, I have added a brief history of pivotal figures in the study of cognition as well as some experiments and the cognitive theories behind them just so people who visit the site can get a feel for what the study of cognition is like first hand. It is being peer-reviewed by three classmates as well as my TA and professor. Hopefully my changes will be beneficial to the article! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mshepha (talk • contribs) 12:45, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Mshepha! I've put reading your sandbox on my (way too long) to-do list. However, at a quick glance, I can see that I like having a section on the origins of cognition added. I'm more doubtful about Common theories and their experiments. I think you need to rename that section (Serial position is not a theory), and aren't there hundreds of these kinds of experiments? Why chose these ones?
Also, you need to improve referencing. In Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners you can read how. If some of your references are books, please state page number.
Keep up the good work! Lova Falk talk 16:16, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Mshepha, welcome and thank you very much for your effort. I also think that it would be good to have a section on the origins of the scientific/psychological study of cognition. Please keep in mind that an encyclopedic article should focus on relevant information, e.g. how some researcher conceived of cognition (and why so) is much more suitable than biographical data about that person. In general, keep in mind the difference between cognitive psychology and "psychology of cognition".
As to the experiments, I think that a possible way to gain structure would be to expand on the relation between early researchers and their methods, i.e. which methods were employed and how do they relate to a particular researcher's idea of cognition?
I think that what is compiled under "social processes" is useful. The present article's lead (the first section) is not very good, so definitions of ‹cognition› and an outline of the emergence of the several disciplines which study it is welcome.
Page numbers in references are really important (articles just as well as books).
㓟 (talk) 01:41, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New sections on origins and experiments

[edit]

Within the article, it should be clearly distinguished between cognition and the study of cognition (e.g., origins of cognition ≠ origins of the study of cognition). Would it be a good idea to combine the new sections with the subsection "Psychology" and make clear that they are about the latter? 㓟 (talk) 12:03, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Aquinas

[edit]

The article states:

Thomas Aquinas .. divided the study of behavior into two broad categories: cognitive (how we know the world), and affective (how we understand the world via feelings and emotions)

There is no specific reference given for this statement, and while I believe it to be true, it seems so significant as to require a reference to specific piece of Thomas's writings.

Would anyone help?

LookingGlass (talk) 09:28, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@anyone-who-can-help-with-this:
FYI I've also tagged the section on Psychology section of the Thomas Aquinas article, so if you can help with the problems there that's be appreciated too. LookingGlass (talk) 10:22, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've upgraded the request for a citation. Not only have I been unable to find any reference at all that would support the claim but from from what I have read regarding Thomas's work it seems very unlikely to me that such a claim could be founded. If no citation or information on this can be provided then I propose to delete the passage. LookingGlass (talk) 18:17, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea, thanks. User:㓟 - (pi) (talk) 09:53, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing in Thomas's article to support this statement, so it has to be deleted as non-supported. I will take a liberty to delete it as the issue have been dormant for 5 years and nobody come up with the supporting citation.Johniddiols (talk) 13:14, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

You may find it helpful while reading or editing articles to look at a bibliography of Intelligence Citations, posted for the use of all Wikipedians who have occasion to edit articles on human intelligence and related issues. I happen to have circulating access to a huge academic research library at a university with an active research program in these issues (and to another library that is one of the ten largest public library systems in the United States) and have been researching these issues since 1989. You are welcome to use these citations for your own research. You can help other Wikipedians by suggesting new sources through comments on that page. It will be extremely helpful for articles on human intelligence to edit them according to the Wikipedia standards for reliable sources for medicine-related articles, as it is important to get these issues as well verified as possible. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 15:11, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Can you help with the above request? LookingGlass (talk) 19:54, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll see what I can find out about Aquinas's view. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 21:24, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A section on embodiment in cognition is needed

[edit]

I think this page misses a section on embodiment in cognition, i.e. how biological factors affect cognition, both in animals and humans. Otherwise it seems that only social factors play the role.Verib (talk) 08:30, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling of names

[edit]

Specifically, that of Hermann Ebbinghaus. His en.Wikipedia article spells his name with the terminal double "n", which is standard German spelling. The wikiarticle History of Psychology agrees. Anglo/American authors have a way of dropping "extra" letters. I believe this man always spelled his name in the German manner, so I intend to correct it. Rags (talk) 08:30, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cognition. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:49, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cognition. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:14, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

==Wiki Education assignment: Academic Research and Critical Thinking== This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 12 January 2022 and 5 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): MatthewSchaublin (article contribs). Peer reviewers: LukeShort2, Garciba0.

Hello, I just wanted to put out a statement of intention for my edits to come. I intend to make the psychology section more oriented toward how different lines of psychological reasoning have tackled concepts of cognition. I would also like to eventually add a section on philosophy of mind as the wikiproject seems to deem it necessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MatthewSchaublin (talk • contribs) 18:00, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Human Cognition SP23

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 20 January 2023 and 15 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Josefine001 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Serenity D-B (talk) 20:03, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dietary Supplement

[edit]

Hi, I was visiting this page looking for resources in the citations, when one source caught my eye and raised some questions. First of all, I know that primary sources are not preferred citations, but also the article itself is explicitly funded by something called the Wild Blueberry Association of North America, which also provided the samples used in the experiment. I don't have time at the moment to look through all of the links, but if they're all like this, what would the community like to do with the claims in this article? I include the relevant text from the research link below for those who do not have access (underlining added by me for emphasis):

Acknowledgements

[edit]

We appreciate the support of the Wild Blueberry Association of North America for their provision of the wild blueberry powder used in this study. Further, we thank the South East Doctoral Training Centre and the Wild Blueberry Association for their financial support. This work is part of an ESRC Case funded studentship. We also thank the participants and school staff who accommodated this research.

Go to:

Compliance with ethical standards

[edit]

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest. Curugh.Firetone (talk) 16:35, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cognition&oldid=1193939597"