Talk:Involuntary memory

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Philosophy of mind

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 February 2020 and 2 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ak509ak509.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:46, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Changes for Class Project to Improve Article

While this article is mostly straightforward and easy to understand, I propose some changes to improve readability, total comprehension, and focused content from a variety of credible sources. These include:

Improvement in readability for beginners for the Neurological Basis section. In my opinion, the way it is written right now, it can get a little convoluted and hard to follow. I would like to re-write this section while focusing on the significance and main results of current research.
Within the Ebbinghaus section, the quote from him takes up a majority of the text. I would like to revise this section to communicate the main points without copying so heavily from a singular outside source.
Also within the Ebbinghaus section, I would like to remove some seemingly unrelated background information to help the information presented in this article to remain relevant to the concept of Involuntary Memory. I believe that condensing this section would help refine it, and if readers want more background information than the little snippet provided for context, then we can link the Ebbinghaus page so they can refer to it there without taking away from their continuity in reading this article.
Expansion on the Reminiscence Bump section to make it clear what the results of the study were (currently, the way it’s described, “age” as a term is confusing because it is not clear whether it’s referring to the age of the participant at the time of recall, or their age in their memories). I would like to evaluate the original cited source and make the results clearer in this summary.
Within the Occurrences section, the paragraphs under the first two subheadings rely heavily on a singular source. I would like to cite more literature in the field to make clear the validity of these claims and this information. Further, the third subheading contains important information but fails to cite any sources, so I’d like to find a credible source to attribute this psychological information to. I believe this section could really be strengthened by these changes as it backs up the validity, credibility, and trustworthiness of where this information is being pulled from.
Grammatical and syntax changes throughout to improve flow, readability, and comprehension.

Happy to hear and discuss any feedback anyone may have on these proposed changes! Ak509ak509 (talk) 22:23, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The addition of 1 certainly improved readability for this section. The findings were summarized in clear, easy to understand language without sacrificing any information. This is more of a minor change (as the overall substance of the edit is solid), but it might make the article sound more objective if the study is referenced instead of the researchers. Aborame (talk) 23:26, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled

The article refers to the "Episode of the Madeleine" twice but does not recount it or explain it. The article on In Search of Lost Time refers to the "famous madeleine episode" but it also does not explain. It should be a section here or there or maybe even have its own article. Spot (talk) 15:44, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article is currently the subject of an educational assignment.

Tea biscuit dunking

Tea biscuit dunking is one of many examples of cues that can elicit involuntary memories, as evidenced by Marcel Proust.

Who wrote that nonsense? Who wrote it?

It's pretty bad. So bad that I came here to dunk on it. Yeeaaahhhhh! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.170.194.242 (talk) 22:24, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And that photograph does not depict a madeleine, nor how it was consumed with the tea in the scene in question. I doubt that's even tea. Count Robert of Paris (talk) 23:40, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

feedback on implications for dementia patients

I think the new section for the implications for dementia patients brings up an important point and an additional perspective through which involuntary memory should be viewed.Perhaps this section could have fit a little better under neurological basis or clinical disorders? but it is definitely a necessary addition!Aadyaa06 (talk) 19:20, 25 April 2020 (UTC)Aadyaa06[reply]

Re: Proust in 1900 image

Not sure what the person who added this was thinking, but the over-processing takes attention away from the subject as it doesn't look natural or preferable to an older, more original image with less post-processing. I would like to restore the older version. Viriditas (talk) 22:23, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored the "normal" version of the minimally processed image.[1] This issue presents a conundrum of sorts, because it occurs to me that younger generations might be conditioned to think these over-processed images, which are commonplace on social media, are preferable because they are used to it. I would argue that they are not, because the over-processing distorts the original subject to such an extent, that it turns it into a new work of art that has no relation to the original. Viriditas (talk) 22:27, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]