Talk:Cognition

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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: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]

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]