Embodied cognition has been listed as one of the
Social sciences and society good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: May 28, 2022. ( Reviewed version). |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 100 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
This article is the subject of an educational assignment at Davidson College supported by WikiProject Psychology and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2011 Q3 term. Further details are available on the course page.
Above message substituted from {{WAP assignment}}
on 14:28, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
This article results from a year-long study project which involved a collaborative effort to improve the embodied cognition content on Wikipedia. The article was improved by cognitive science students at the University of Osnabrück under the supervision of Prof. Dr. med. Peter König. (2021-2022) Darcyisverycute ( talk) 05:41, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
It seems to me that the research collected in Thinking Fast and Slow is relevant here. Their description of the "adaptive unconscious" is a precise way of understanding how embodiment is implemented in actual brains of actual people. Doesn't their research confirm the basic idea and, simultaneously, supersede some of the more hand-wavy / postmodernist stuff that you find in Varela and Thompson, etc.? Is this academic conversation still happening, or is it all back in the 80s? --- CharlesGillingham ( talk) 05:13, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
Under the page’s current state, there is an imbalance regarding the distribution of the cognitive capacities content. Namely, most of them are listed under section 5 “Cognitive psychology”. This is both unfair to the other sciences and problematic since all those topics (subsections 5.1 to 5.9) are investigated across all sciences. The changes include but are not limited to:
For more information, a hidden comment on the “Cognitive psychology” section has been added. John J. Madrid ( talk) 14:11, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
Updated version of the proposal after meeting consultation provided below.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by John J. Madrid ( talk • contribs) 17:12, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for asking. I would appreciate if any other edit comes after the good article review comes —since it’s also part of the process. (Any minor grammar edit or similar are being inspected at the time being and hopefully will be finished by the time the article gets reviewed). John J. Madrid ( talk) 21:22, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Darcyisverycute ( talk · contribs) 09:36, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
GA review – see
WP:WIAGA for criteria
Abrahamson et al. (2020) survey and analyze several frameworks...Needs copyediting (in addition to inline citations) Pending John J. Madrid ( talk) 06:52, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
manipulationshave an unclear meaning and need to be quantified and/or renamed/wikilinked to the correct terminology. Assume you are writing for a general audience, all psychology terminology that isn't common knowledge by the general public needs to be defined or summarised in-article. In general wikilinking and defining terms seems to be done well, it's just an issue for a few terms. If you can, I would recommend just using a general purpose term instead; it's encouraged to summarise works, and terms that are used only by a single paper or author should not be included/used in articles. I will list other ones I have noticed here:
Take the "power poses" studies for example...-> For example, power posing which is classified under embodied cognition because [explanation] [cite] ... failed replication. [cite] Done John J. Madrid ( talk) 21:21, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
current literature. Use the WP:ASOF template instead. Especially for a field developing over multiple decades, it is important for readers to get a sense of chronological developments; this may also mean rearranging content within sections to be chronologically consistent.
It is widely acknowledged that...By who? Done John J. Madrid ( talk) 21:32, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
Lakoff and Nuñez (2000)+
Daum at al. ...This format is not used for Wikipedia articles. Only mention the authors if they are especially notable or relevant to the article, such as the founder of a field. When they are, don't put the year next to it like a journal publication - only an inline citation is needed. If there is a large variance in dates of publications, or the chronological order is important like for the history section, it can be more appropriate to say like this: "In a 2005 study..." Done John J. Madrid ( talk) 16:30, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
Given this ambiguity, O'Regan, J. K. and Nöe, A. put forth what will be known as...Only use past tense referring to past research. Could say instead like: "What would later be known as..." Done John J. Madrid ( talk) 21:34, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
(w): I look at the paper and it seems like an italicised math script "w" and not lower case omega. Since it's only used three times it's probably more appropriate (especially given this is not a math article) to just say "meta-prior" three times. FYI though, to get omega if you wanted to: <math>\omega</math> -> Done John J. Madrid ( talk) 16:28, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
Shakey’s architectureThis link points to Lisp. This is not obvious to a person clicking the link. Better to replace it like "Shakey’s architecture (lisp)" and then wikilink the word in brackets. Done John J. Madrid ( talk) 16:36, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
The fact that...+
So stated, ...+
So, ...+
Furthermore, ...Avoid phrases like these.
Thanks for putting the inline markers! I will respond to them below:
trans-title= |
parameter can be used to specify English title translations for citations, and I was considering suggesting an article split based on the wordcount. As you are clearly more experienced in this topic than me, you might have some ideas on how content in the page can be split up in summary style so that the article prose length could be reduced with the goal of article flow/readability. One idea that could work is to move most of the "history" section to its own article. If it makes more sense to keep all the information here (ie. it wouldn't make sense to use summary style) then it is okay to keep it.trans-title= |
parameter for the English translation Done
John J. Madrid (
talk)
19:17, 24 May 2022 (UTC)The effect is also not intended to be easy to seeThis is exactly the issue. According to MOS:IMAGES, "Images should look like what they are meant to illustrate", and although that is not really written with optical illusions/effects in mind, the image by definition does not clearly demonstrate what it's intended to illustrate. I can perfectly understand using this gif for a research experiment for example, but this is a wikipedia article, and it's better to make the effect as easy to see for readers as we can. I looked at the animation for a few minutes and was not able to notice the difference - if most people don't notice the difference, can we say the image has any real explanatory view in the article? Aside from noticing the effect, in the current gif format not only do users need to click on the image, they need to click on it twice: as on the image page it says, "Note: Due to technical limitations, thumbnails of high resolution GIF images such as this one will not be animated." I think it's better for the content of the article to be self-contained in the page, not requiring users to click to links elsewhere to understand just this page content.
I respect the effort and attention to detail, but as a non-specialist reader, I found this article too long. Might it be possible to condense it? 13,000 words seems excessive. The first part is great, but after that my eyes glazed over. Victimofleisure ( talk) 15:40, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
Many of the lines in the controversy section seem to be biased rebuttles of controversies themselves.
In the "Replication crisis and misinterpretation" sub-section, for example, it is stated that:
"Researchers failing to replicate the same results does not prove cognition is unaffected/uninfluenced by the body. There are still plenty of findings within the topic of embodied cognition that are scientifically sound."
I'm not knowledgeable enough about Wikipedia's policies and article standards so I'm choosing not to make any changes myself in case I'm mistaken. EdgarAllan2.Poe ( talk) 18:12, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
Embodied cognition has been listed as one of the
Social sciences and society good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: May 28, 2022. ( Reviewed version). |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 100 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
This article is the subject of an educational assignment at Davidson College supported by WikiProject Psychology and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2011 Q3 term. Further details are available on the course page.
Above message substituted from {{WAP assignment}}
on 14:28, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
This article results from a year-long study project which involved a collaborative effort to improve the embodied cognition content on Wikipedia. The article was improved by cognitive science students at the University of Osnabrück under the supervision of Prof. Dr. med. Peter König. (2021-2022) Darcyisverycute ( talk) 05:41, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
It seems to me that the research collected in Thinking Fast and Slow is relevant here. Their description of the "adaptive unconscious" is a precise way of understanding how embodiment is implemented in actual brains of actual people. Doesn't their research confirm the basic idea and, simultaneously, supersede some of the more hand-wavy / postmodernist stuff that you find in Varela and Thompson, etc.? Is this academic conversation still happening, or is it all back in the 80s? --- CharlesGillingham ( talk) 05:13, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
Under the page’s current state, there is an imbalance regarding the distribution of the cognitive capacities content. Namely, most of them are listed under section 5 “Cognitive psychology”. This is both unfair to the other sciences and problematic since all those topics (subsections 5.1 to 5.9) are investigated across all sciences. The changes include but are not limited to:
For more information, a hidden comment on the “Cognitive psychology” section has been added. John J. Madrid ( talk) 14:11, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
Updated version of the proposal after meeting consultation provided below.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by John J. Madrid ( talk • contribs) 17:12, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for asking. I would appreciate if any other edit comes after the good article review comes —since it’s also part of the process. (Any minor grammar edit or similar are being inspected at the time being and hopefully will be finished by the time the article gets reviewed). John J. Madrid ( talk) 21:22, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Darcyisverycute ( talk · contribs) 09:36, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
GA review – see
WP:WIAGA for criteria
Abrahamson et al. (2020) survey and analyze several frameworks...Needs copyediting (in addition to inline citations) Pending John J. Madrid ( talk) 06:52, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
manipulationshave an unclear meaning and need to be quantified and/or renamed/wikilinked to the correct terminology. Assume you are writing for a general audience, all psychology terminology that isn't common knowledge by the general public needs to be defined or summarised in-article. In general wikilinking and defining terms seems to be done well, it's just an issue for a few terms. If you can, I would recommend just using a general purpose term instead; it's encouraged to summarise works, and terms that are used only by a single paper or author should not be included/used in articles. I will list other ones I have noticed here:
Take the "power poses" studies for example...-> For example, power posing which is classified under embodied cognition because [explanation] [cite] ... failed replication. [cite] Done John J. Madrid ( talk) 21:21, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
current literature. Use the WP:ASOF template instead. Especially for a field developing over multiple decades, it is important for readers to get a sense of chronological developments; this may also mean rearranging content within sections to be chronologically consistent.
It is widely acknowledged that...By who? Done John J. Madrid ( talk) 21:32, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
Lakoff and Nuñez (2000)+
Daum at al. ...This format is not used for Wikipedia articles. Only mention the authors if they are especially notable or relevant to the article, such as the founder of a field. When they are, don't put the year next to it like a journal publication - only an inline citation is needed. If there is a large variance in dates of publications, or the chronological order is important like for the history section, it can be more appropriate to say like this: "In a 2005 study..." Done John J. Madrid ( talk) 16:30, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
Given this ambiguity, O'Regan, J. K. and Nöe, A. put forth what will be known as...Only use past tense referring to past research. Could say instead like: "What would later be known as..." Done John J. Madrid ( talk) 21:34, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
(w): I look at the paper and it seems like an italicised math script "w" and not lower case omega. Since it's only used three times it's probably more appropriate (especially given this is not a math article) to just say "meta-prior" three times. FYI though, to get omega if you wanted to: <math>\omega</math> -> Done John J. Madrid ( talk) 16:28, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
Shakey’s architectureThis link points to Lisp. This is not obvious to a person clicking the link. Better to replace it like "Shakey’s architecture (lisp)" and then wikilink the word in brackets. Done John J. Madrid ( talk) 16:36, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
The fact that...+
So stated, ...+
So, ...+
Furthermore, ...Avoid phrases like these.
Thanks for putting the inline markers! I will respond to them below:
trans-title= |
parameter can be used to specify English title translations for citations, and I was considering suggesting an article split based on the wordcount. As you are clearly more experienced in this topic than me, you might have some ideas on how content in the page can be split up in summary style so that the article prose length could be reduced with the goal of article flow/readability. One idea that could work is to move most of the "history" section to its own article. If it makes more sense to keep all the information here (ie. it wouldn't make sense to use summary style) then it is okay to keep it.trans-title= |
parameter for the English translation Done
John J. Madrid (
talk)
19:17, 24 May 2022 (UTC)The effect is also not intended to be easy to seeThis is exactly the issue. According to MOS:IMAGES, "Images should look like what they are meant to illustrate", and although that is not really written with optical illusions/effects in mind, the image by definition does not clearly demonstrate what it's intended to illustrate. I can perfectly understand using this gif for a research experiment for example, but this is a wikipedia article, and it's better to make the effect as easy to see for readers as we can. I looked at the animation for a few minutes and was not able to notice the difference - if most people don't notice the difference, can we say the image has any real explanatory view in the article? Aside from noticing the effect, in the current gif format not only do users need to click on the image, they need to click on it twice: as on the image page it says, "Note: Due to technical limitations, thumbnails of high resolution GIF images such as this one will not be animated." I think it's better for the content of the article to be self-contained in the page, not requiring users to click to links elsewhere to understand just this page content.
I respect the effort and attention to detail, but as a non-specialist reader, I found this article too long. Might it be possible to condense it? 13,000 words seems excessive. The first part is great, but after that my eyes glazed over. Victimofleisure ( talk) 15:40, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
Many of the lines in the controversy section seem to be biased rebuttles of controversies themselves.
In the "Replication crisis and misinterpretation" sub-section, for example, it is stated that:
"Researchers failing to replicate the same results does not prove cognition is unaffected/uninfluenced by the body. There are still plenty of findings within the topic of embodied cognition that are scientifically sound."
I'm not knowledgeable enough about Wikipedia's policies and article standards so I'm choosing not to make any changes myself in case I'm mistaken. EdgarAllan2.Poe ( talk) 18:12, 14 July 2024 (UTC)