Talk:Embodied cognition

[[Category: good articles|Embodied cognition]] User:MiszaBot/config Template:Archives

Wikipedia Ambassador Program assignment

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 Template:Tlc on 14:28, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Note

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)

This article needs to be rewritten as a Philosophy subject relating Embodiment subjects and is in conflict with "Wikipedia's not recognizing" "Philosophy of Embodied self" as all other major research does. Where is Snowden when we need him 75.82.19.242 (talk) 23:19, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Adaptive unconscious / Tversky & Kahnemann

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)

Template:Ping Thanks for pointing out this source. I also agree Kahneman's work is in line with the embodiment thesis. It is also a very well received work. The idea would be to find a place in the page where we can refer to it and deepen in to the topics of the book showing how they aline to embodied cognition. John J. Madrid (talk) 18:36, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Restructure page's content table

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:

File:Restructure proposal1 2021-11-03.png

1. Edit section 4 and add some paragraphs that will contain information about the different sciences and emphasise the interdisciplinary approach to investigate cognition from an embodied perspective. Thus, the headers containing the different sciences will no longer exist as separate header but rather they will be contained as individual paragraphs inside section 4.

2. Then, subsections 5.1 to 5.9 and 7.1 (along with any other relevant topics that appear) will constitute each its own header and listed after section 5 (option 1), or we create a separate header (e.g., “Cognitive and bodily features/aspects”) and list the subsections under it. I consider option 2 more appropriate but open to hear ideas. (See figure proposal).

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.

File:Restructure proposal1 UPDATE 2021-11-12.png

— Preceding unsigned comment added by John J. Madrid (talk • contribs) 17:12, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

John J. Madrid, do you mind me cleaning up the sentences and paragraphs while you wait for the good article reviewer? I feel a little reluctant to edit the page since you feel it's ready for that type of review. GBFEE (talk) 20:37, 16 April 2022 (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)

I'll hold off then. If you like, I can come back for the good article review. GBFEE (talk) 20:37, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Too long

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)

The Controversy section is jarring to read.

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)