Talk:Embodied cognition
![]() | 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. |
Wikipedia Ambassador Program assignment
[edit]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)
Note
[edit]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)
Too long
[edit]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.
[edit]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)
Article review
[edit]I took a look at the article, and noticed the following:
- There are lots of uncited statements, including entire paragraphs.
- I do not think the lead summarises all major aspects of the article.
- The article is too detailed with over 12,500 words. I suggest that prose be spun out, summarised more effectively, or trimmed.
Should this article go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 20:00, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
- Wikipedia good articles
- Social sciences and society good articles
- GA-Class psychology articles
- Mid-importance psychology articles
- WikiProject Psychology articles
- GA-Class Philosophy articles
- Mid-importance Philosophy articles
- GA-Class metaphysics articles
- Mid-importance metaphysics articles
- Metaphysics task force articles
- GA-Class philosophy of mind articles
- Mid-importance philosophy of mind articles
- Philosophy of mind task force articles
- Wikipedia Ambassador Program student projects, 2011 Q3