Talk:Ideasthesia

Juxtoposition

I added an additional image showing grapheme with color and time unit-space union. Taric25 (talk) 23:10, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

This image had a link to porn contexts. This is a sufficient reason to delete. There were also other problems. The content did not provide much additional information and pushed away relevant information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.230.54.32 (talk) 21:39, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

See also, WP:NOR and WP:RS. Edhubbard (talk) 16:42, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Term

This term appears to be primarily from one person and they created this article. There is nothing on google books. I guess the question is, is this the same as "synesthesia" and should it thus be merged into that article. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:11, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I would thus propose a merge to there. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:12, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Evolution and Ideasthesia and Synesthesia

Ideasthesia and Synesthesia are Tested as neurological phenomena but are part of the Natural evolution of instinct, sensation, emotion, and mentation; our means for meaning... The effort to understand at this level of life's inducements, interactions and transformations can simplify or complicate observations of evolution...Arnlodg (talk) 01:10, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

References

Kiki/Bouba effect

There was a statement in the article that said "it has been shown that the Bouba/Kiki phenomenon is a case of ideasthesia." The reference given requires payment to view the full article, however, the abstract gives no indication that an experiment was conducted to "show" that the effect is a result of connections at a cognitive level, rather than a synesthesic effect. Since it has been experimentally shown that young, pre-linguistic children demonstrate the effect, any claim that it results from ideasthesia will require extraordinary evidence. I changed the statement to read "it has been suggested that..." Sparkie82 (t•c) 23:01, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

References

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ideasthesia/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 12:09, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Should complete this one within a day or two ☯ Jaguar ☯ 12:09, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Initial comments

• Per WP:LEAD, I'm not sure if that table should really be there. If it's essential to the article could you move it into the body?

• "The following table shows the difference" - this should be cut and moved elsewhere in the article as tables cannot be in the lead section. Also, I notice that it doesn't use a real table format?

• "and is introduced by Danko Nikolić" - who is Danko Nikolic? A scientist/researcher? This sentence should introduce him
• "in fact are induced by the semantic representations i.e., the meaning, of the stimulus[2][3][4][5][6]" - just curious, that's a lot of citations, is that truly controversial information?
• The Ideasthesia in normal perception section is vastly unreferenced. Can you add more citations to back up some claims?
• The last section "Ideasthesia and the hard problem of consciousness" only has one reference, can anything else be added?

References

• No dead links
• However as mentioned above, there are a lack of citations in some places in this article that need to be addressed

On hold

This was interesting to read. While I'm not so well versed on the topic I would say for what it's worth this does meet the "broad in coverage" criteria as it tells the reader everything they need to know. The major concern here is the lead section, per WP:LEAD tables don't belong there. Also some lack of citations that need to be added in order to back up various claims. However I am happy with the prose, so it's just a few technical things. I'll put this on hold for at least seven days and will review the progress. Thanks! ☯ Jaguar ☯ 14:00, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments addressed

Thank you very much for the review. I addressed your comments as follows:

• The table is removed and the content is moved to the text.
• Danko Nikolic is introduced as a "neuroscientist".
• Comment: The nature of synesthesia is still somewhat a controversial issue. Most notably, Ramachandran (an influential scientist) and his students continue to hold the traditional view.
• Multiple references are added in "Ideasthesia in normal perception".
• Also, two more references are added in "Ideasthesia and the hard problem of consciousness".

I hope I did not forget anything. (Danko (talk) 17:47, 4 January 2015 (UTC))

Thanks for your improvements! Happy to say that this article meets the criteria now. With the lead improved the prose issues out of the way this is in better shape. Promoting ☯ Jaguar ☯ 20:56, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

A theory of qualia? How exactly?

I have just added this tag to the 'ideasthesia as a theory of qualia'. In my reading of the section it makes the pretty grand claim that Ideathesia speaks volumes to the issue of qualia, but then does not sufficiently explain the way in which that is true. There is the claim that "experience is created by the process of activating the concept of that stimulus", but that only seems to raise more questions. How is a concept activated? What is the process? And most critically, how does this transform cognitive process into subjective experience? Some further fleshing out is needed here. Cheers Andrew (talk) 00:12, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

GA reassessment

Ideasthesia

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: While there is a lack of clear consensus here, the discussion of neutrality at Template:Did you know nominations/Ideasthesia and the lack of keep responses here will serve as reason for delisting DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 07:08, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

The article was elevated to GA status in January 2015, the primary contributor to this article Dankonikolic nominated this article for DYK ( Template:Did you know nominations/Ideasthesia ), where issues not addressed in the GA Review by Jaguar were brought up and and discussed by Carlojoseph14, Victuallers, BlueMoonset, EEng, Crisco_1492, myself, and more specifically by U3964057, who brought up the WP:COI and WP:PRIMARY issues. Due to these unresolved issues Allen3 did not pass the nomination. Therefore, as these issues effect Criteria #2 & Criteria #4 of WP:GACR, I am opening up this article to community reassessment.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:22, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Responding to ping. On a very superficial evaluation, this seems way too much of a pet neologism. I summon DGG who I believe will have a good handle on evaluating uptake beyond the term's originator. EEng (talk) 04:10, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

This isn't my academic field. All I can do is look at Google Scholar, and count. (I suppose you could say that looking at such indexes and counting is one of my academic specialties, more pompously known as bibliometrics!) The listing for ideaesthesia shows only 27 uses in all of the scientific literature, and all of them in articles that rather few people have cited. There's an alternate spelling, and the [ideasthesia listing for "ideasthesia"] shows even fewer. And one of them says they got the term from the WP article! Looking at theGScholar results for Danko Nikolić, he has some very highly cited papers, but none of them are on this. There's enough to make this more than FRINGE, or subject to deletion as a neologism, but the article gives the mistaken impression that it's a widely-used term. To say "However, most phenomena that have inadvertently been linked to synesthesia, in fact are induced by the semantic representations i.e., the meaning, of the stimulus[2][3][4][5][6] rather than by its sensory properties, as would be implied by the term synesthesia" is not really justified. It should read, "According to some workers [2][3][4][5][6], most phenomena.... " The general statement can only be used when its accepted as such by major secondary quality review articles or standard textbooks, unrelated to the originators. DGG ( talk ) 04:28, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi all. I have been mentioned as a protagonist in this but am not sure that I have much more to add on top of what has already been said. I think I would only reiterate the comments that I made here. Cheers Andrew (talk) 04:01, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I have made the change proposed by DGG. Please do not destroy the page on ideasthesia. This would be quite a loss. I am willing to improve it to whatever degree you may find necessary. (Danko (talk) 15:32, 26 April 2015 (UTC))

right now the only question is the article's status as a Good Article. Given DGG's analysis above the article seems safe for the moment against deletion on WP:Notability grounds, but I wouldn't be surprised if someone proposes having a debate on that. If such a debate does commence, than please, Dankonikolic, please don't take it personally. This happens a lot with new concepts and it's the way Wikipedia works -- must work -- for a lot of reasons. The best thing you can do is to get together as many indpendent sources citing and discussing this concept. I would recommend your listing them on the article's talk page, and explaining how it would be used in the article. Given that this is your new concept, people will be very on-guard about potential WP:Conflict of interest, so discussing things first will be best. Having said that, there won't be many people watching the page so you may get little response. Be very, very patient, and do not recruit colleagues to become editors to support you in this -- that will be very obvious and will lead to trouble so fast you won't believe it. Let it develop naturally over time -- and that may mean years. To be honest, the best thing for you may be to concentrate on your research and publishing in the usual journals, and forget about Wikipedia. Sooner or later some enthusiastic graduate student will start developing the article, and you'll be pleasantly surprised. Good luck! EEng (talk) 17:28, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

There appears to be a consensus for delisting, am I correct?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:23, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Glad you replied. I'm the one doing the GAR communities for the past few months and intend to close this as no consensus for delisting. The main issues have been notability challenges and no one has outright said "This fails GA 2c" or the sorts. If there is something clearer, I could give it a different closing next week or so. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 18:27, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

As I stated in the initial statement of opening this GA reassessment, it could be argued that it is not neutral due to conflict of interest of the primary editor of this article, in that the primary editor is also the author or co-author of a significant number of the reliable sources used in this article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:54, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Oops, I need to clarify myself. I meant a clearer consensus to delist or keep on this page, aside from just the nominator. After a bit of thought, I'll take the DYK discussion and use it as a consensus for delisting. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 07:08, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

• Post-close comment: I believe the close (as delist) was appropriate. EEng (talk) 15:45, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Illustration not explained.

An image cited only as "the uploader's own work" (WP:OR?) bears the caption: "An example of time unit - space synesthesia/ideasthesia." Okay, but what is "time unit - space synesthesia/ideasthesia"? The article fails to provide that answer. An earlier comment above, Juxtaposition, mentions an illustrated example of this topic that was deleted because: "This image had a link to porn contexts." Is this the same image, reinserted?

• To summarize, the image needs a source to prove it's a real example of the stated topic and isn't just a child's drawing utilizing color as a decorative element that may simulate the topic.

• The article should cover the topic of "time unit - space synesthesia/ideasthesia" to support the image. If it cannot, remove the image.

Thank you for your attention, Wordreader (talk) 21:53, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

-- This should be fixed now [Danko Nikolic] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.198.217.197 (talk) 18:38, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Introductory definition

"Ideasthesia (alternative spelling ideaesthesia) is a neuroscientific phenomenon..."

I am replacing "neuroscientific" with "neuropsychological" for the following reason:

Neuroscientific means "pertaining to the discipline/domain of neuroscience". In that neuroscience is a term denoting a certain domain of activity - and explicitly denotes nothing other than that - it is not appropriate to use the adjective "neuroscientific" as if neuroscience were a actually a system of classifying phenomena falling under its purview. For that, one needs to identify a level (i.e., subdomain) of neuroscientific research in which ideasthesia is directly studied and theoretically conceptualized and thereby gets meaningfully classified. Ideasthesia is a phenomenon studied within the research subdomain of neuropsychology (i.e. is a subset of neuropsychology's spectrum of investigative foci), and so pertains to its spectrum.

If one were to apply the term "neuroscientific" as a valid classifier of phenomena pertaining to its domain of activity, then logically, its classifiable phenomena would be particular examples of activity that neuroscientists generally engage in or are accountable for, e.g. holding and attending symposia, conducting research projects, neuroscientific journals and writing papers for publication therein, labs created for research, fund-granting bodies, etc. Trusting my point and action is deemed reasonable. Elagabalicus (talk) 01:08, 25 September 2021 (UTC)