Talk:Aha! effect

This is the talk page of a redirect that targets the page:
• Eureka effect
Because this page is not frequently watched, present and future discussions, edit requests and requested moves should take place at:
• Talk:Eureka effect

Text and/or other creative content from this version of Eureka effect was copied or moved into Aha! effect with this edit on 4 January 2012. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Text and/or other creative content from this version of Aha! effect was copied or moved into Eureka effect with this edit on 17 February 2012. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Martin Gardner's "aha" books

Martin Gardner was an influential writer on concepts in mathematics, compiling a popular column in Scientific American for decades. He wrote the two following books, which could well have been influential in the construction and perpetuation of the aha meme.

1978 Aha! Insight, W.H. Freeman & Company; ISBN 0-7167-1017-X

1982 Aha! Gotcha: Paradoxes to Puzzle and Delight (Tools for Transformation); W.H. Freeman & Company; ISBN 0-7167-1361-6

I was surprised to see that there was no mention of him and these works in this otherwise fairly comprehensive article. I will do something to add them, to the bibliography at the very least, if no one objects. In the meantime, I am inviting discussion. I have been a fan of Gardner's writings for decades myself, but I have not read these two books, although I use the term aha, if it could be called that. I was never sure where it came from, but I suspect it was - indirectly - from Gardner, rather than from the writers dealt with in this article, none of whom are known to me. Myles325a (talk) 09:48, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merger

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result was merge Eureka effect into Aha! effect. I have only done a partial merge due to overlapping sections. If people want to merge more content, the old Eureka effect article can still be found here. -- Quasi human | Talk 12:18, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I propose that Eureka effect be merged into this article, as it is essentially the same topic. Any thoughts on that? Quasi human | Talk 15:38, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What should the merged article be called? I find Aha! effect somewhat awkward because of the punctuation. What is the most frequently used name for this phenomenon in the literature? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 12:53, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The research literature almost uniformly considers "Aha" and "Eureka" moments as the same thing, and refer to them as "Insight Experiences" which could be a name for the merged article. 150.210.231.20 (talk) 19:25, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, real-life commitments mean that I don't have time to carry out the merge right now or in the next couple of weeks. How about just redirecting Eureka effect to here for now, and copy and pasting non-duplicated content over from the history of Eureka effect over time? Quasi human | Talk 09:34, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not really that urgent. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 10:56, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Florian Blaschke that it's not that urgent. I oppose redirecting Eureka effect until the content has been merged. This will ensure that the content will not be lost if you forget to merge it. Cunard (talk) 11:01, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I support the merge; I'd prefer the Eureka title. Also, I'd strongly suggest merging them both with epiphany (feeling). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 04:21, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all, apologies for the lengthy wikibreak in the middle of the merge discussion. I am now ready to merge the articles. I would appreciate any help people can offer in cleaning up after the merge. I don't see any consensus on what the name of the final article should be, so what I suggest is that Eureka effect be merged into this article (mainly because it's the bigger article, the work will be less doing it that way), and the final name can be decided in a separate move discussion. Merging three articles will be a bit too much work for me at the moment, so maybe epiphany (feeling) can be merged separately at a later date. I'll wait a few days to see if anyone objects to this plan. Thanks, Quasi human | Talk 11:41, 27 December 2011 (UTC) DoneQuasi human | Talk 13:03, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

See Talk:Eureka effect#Back to eureka. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 18:34, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]