Talk:Sense of agency

Psychology Mid‑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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Philosophy Start‑class Low‑importance

	Philosophy portal 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
Start	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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.

Various edits made

See edit summaries for careful explanations. Note, the SA and SO abbreviations appear in the lede, then disappear (!). If these are important in the discussion of schizophrenia (as suggested in the lede), why is there no mention of this dichotomy in the main article (which takes, rather, a decidedly more neuroanatomical tack)?

Finally, the lack of page numbers is quite troubling, as is what appears to be a penchant for interested editors to do WP:OR in selecting primary sources for inclusion (rather than waiting and summarizing established results from good secondary sources).

Here is note content {} regarding a deleted image that appeared hidden in the text, which seems no longer necessary (see bullet, and box at right, and click Edit of this Talk Section to see the markup details).

"Deleted image removed:
File:TPJ imitation.jpg
Right temporoparietal junction activation when individuals see their actions being imitated by another individual. This graphic illustrates the relative hemodynamic variation when participants acted at will (A), when they imitated the actions demonstrated by another person (B), and when they saw their actions being imitated by the other (C). Note the dramatic increase in right TPJ in this later condition. rCBF, regional cerebral blood flow. (Decety et al., 2002).
"

71.239.87.100 (talk) 11:48, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lede is not a true lede (introduction)

The lede in place covers primary defining conent (SA, SO) in depth of three paragraphs, a dichotomy which then appears in a single sentence later in the article (in the Definition section). These concepts do not appear elsewhere, again in the article. More critically, the lede lacks summary material on the remainder of the article, and in both of these ways (over-emphasis of SA/SO, and dearth of anything else), fails in any real sense to function as a lede.

I suggest that (i) these three paragraphs of "lede" text be moved to its own section, entitled "Agency versus ownership", (ii) a short lede be written, to summarize this section, as well as all of the rest of the sections (whose material currently is absent from the lede). This will also entail a bit of work integrating the new section into the article (see the Definitions section). 71.239.87.100 (talk) 12:10, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Section "Other aspects of agency"

Connecting the article to the idea of proxy agency might be the result of conflating the notions of agency and sense of agency. It is unclear how getting others to act on one's own behalf is related to the feeling of being the one who is acting. Certainly, I don't normally get a feeling that I paid the bill when I get you to pay the bill. Perhaps this section should be moved to an article that discusses agency, rather than the sense of agency. Similarly, it is not clear how the sense of agency is relevant to moral responsibility. The section states that agency underlies responsibility. How does this connect to the sense of agency? Orgonaut (talk) 10:01, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Greek translation

here are many options:

πίστη-πεποίθηση-ψευδαίσθηση αυτενέργειας
πίστη στην (ατομική) αυτενέργεια, πίστη στην αυτενέργεια του εαυτού

note: αυτενεργός πίστη might be considered a mistranslation, so we don't use it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:410B:9500:C57C:8101:400E:1099 (talk) 18:18, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Should the "Sense of Agency" and "Self-Agency" wiki pages be merged?

The Sense of Agency page leans towards neuroscientific explanations, and the Self-Agency page leans towards psychological explanations, but both seem to be talking about the same thing, the perception of conscious will. One could go further and argue that the "Self-efficacy" page should be folded in as well, since it's concerned with how much of that perception an individual has. though, hmm, this paper argues that a sense of agency scale is measuring something slightly different from a self-efficacy scale: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01552/full — Preceding unsigned comment added by N2sx1z (talk • contribs) 20:35, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]