Talk:Affective science

Psychology Low‑importance

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Science Low‑importance

	Science portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Science on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject ScienceTemplate:WikiProject Sciencescience articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Cognitive science (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cognitive science, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Cognitive scienceWikipedia:WikiProject Cognitive scienceTemplate:WikiProject Cognitive scienceCognitive science articles

Neuroscience Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Neuroscience, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Neuroscience on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NeuroscienceWikipedia:WikiProject NeuroscienceTemplate:WikiProject Neuroscienceneuroscience articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Words mean things

I would be against merging the "Affective science" phrase into another entry of Wikipedia knowledge.

Affect is a very interesting word for modern thinkers. Affect causes effect. Logically, this puts affective action well beyond the confines of mere psychology. We are dealing with more than emotion here. Affect has, is, it's own ontology, an on-to-logic: or so it seems to me.

If we can understand affect, in a material and energetic sense, then I believe we go a long way towards resolving the a prior vs. a posteriori argument that seems to dominate the real vs. ideal debates.

Garydeines (talk) 15:10, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paradigm shift

Affective science is not necessarily at odds with cognitive science, even though it is possible to cast it in such a light. Many of the methods used in affective science are natural extensions of those used in cognitive science. To that end, I think it is a bit controversial to describe here an "affective revolution" related to "massive changes in social values and life styles" and "a major scientific paradigm shift away from exclusively rational models of man." Furthermore, the specific nature of these major social and scientific changes is unclear and uncited. For that reason, I have removed the statements, pending further discussion. That said, many thanks to 129.194.8.73 for much needed efforts in expanding this article.

cheers, sallison 09:47, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

meaning of affect

This is the closest relation to the word affect (in which I was looking for), but I still did not get the answers I wanted. I wish this main article could be expanded in means of showing a difference in the words affect verses effect. I'm sure there are a lot of people who might not even know there was a difference. Mick 23:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i don't think that the meaning of affect vs. effect would be well placed in this article. Such a discussion probably belongs on the affect page or in the wiktionary (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/affect) where there already is one. however, for the best answer i've seen to your question, check out http://wsu.edu/~brians/errors/affect.html ... as the emotional meaning of affect is certainly not the only use of the word. sallison 07:58, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How do you mean? Affect as in "The sun affects my skin"? Effect as in "The effect of too much sun may be skin cancer"? You can look these words up in the dictionary. If you mean affective, as used in this article, then it means an observed mood in another person. A common term in Psychology is "Affect was labile" meaning the observed person's mood seems to be unstable. --Mattisse 17:44, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merger

Oppose Although this page will not merit or get many links and few folks will "Go" to it from the search box, it might have some value in giving people a chance to decide whether they want to go to a general psych article, Emotion, or a more technical article, Affective neuroscience. The article even gives them more choices: mood, affect, affect display, and even feelings (with appropriate warnings for a scientist). I don't think that we would want WP to get too reductionist in its approach to a rather far-reaching subject area like emotion. DCDuring 19:53, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I note that there is no merger tag on Affective neuroscience. DCDuring 19:58, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly Oppose By combining affective science and affective neuroscience there is an implied assumption of a purely neurological basis for emotion. This rules out constructivist accounts of emotion, whereby emotion and emotional expression are mediated by one's culture. There are a number of texts discussing this, including Cultural Psychology texts by Schweder, and even Paul Ekman and Richard Davidson's (Eds.) own book on The Nature of Emotion. Therefore, I suggest not combining the two articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RyanRomingerPhD (talk • contribs) 15:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose So far as categories go, it would be more logical if affective neuroscience is merged into the more general category of affective science (rather than the other way round). However, since the neuroscience page is currently much longer it would overwhelm this one. Apart from the arguments above there is plenty of affective science that is not neurological including psychology, economics and linguistics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomascochrane (talk • contribs) 08:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Measuring emotions

i think this section will be well placed in emotions. Further it would be appropriate to merge the entire page with affect (psychology). I guess there would be no strong opposition to this Kpmiyapuram (talk) 16:43, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Affect (psychology)

It has been suggested that this article be merged with Affect (psychology).

Oppose. One article (Affect - psychology) discusses a phenomenon as it is conceptualised in psychology. The other discusses a branch of science. Neither could be adequately described in a couple of paragraphs as a subsection of another article. Each merits its own article. Your thoughts would be appreciated so we can resolve this soon. Anthony (talk) 04:14, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly Oppose. Not the same thing. The reasons given above are excellent. In the same way, it would not make sense to merge Cognitive psychology or Cognitive science with Cognition. Since this request has been pending for months and the editor who made the original merger request has not further explained why it should happen, I am removing the tag. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 17:20, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Affective science. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080503010907/http://www.affective-sciences.org:80/affective-sciences to http://www.affective-sciences.org/affective-sciences

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 02:41, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]