Template:Did you know nominations/Mind

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 talk 16:03, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Mind

(

• Back to T:TDYK
• Article history

)

• ... that one obstacle in studying the mind is the complexity of the human brain, which has about 86 billion neurons, each with up to 10,000 links to other neurons?

• Source:

• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Sequenza XIV
• Comment:

References

Sources

• Friedenberg, Jay; Silverman, Gordon; Spivey, Michael (2022). Cognitive Science: An Introduction to the Study of Mind (4 ed.). Sage Publications. ISBN 978-1-5443-8015-5.
• Yukalov, V. I.; Sornette, D. (2014). "How Brains Make Decisions". In Freund, Friedemann; Langhoff, Stephanie (eds.). Universe of Scales: From Nanotechnology to Cosmology: Symposium in Honor of Minoru M. Freund. Springer. ISBN 978-3-319-02207-9. Archived from the original on 2024-04-23. Retrieved 2024-04-23.
• Scanlon, Valerie C.; Sanders, Tina (2018). Essentials of Anatomy and Physiology. F. A. Davis. ISBN 978-0-8036-9006-6. Archived from the original on 2024-04-22. Retrieved 2024-04-23.

Improved to Good Article status by Phlsph7 (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 23 past nominations.

Phlsph7 (talk) 15:52, 8 October 2024 (UTC).

Fascinating article, Good article, on fine sources, offline sources accepted AGF, no copyvio obvious. I approve the hook, but I am open for alternatives. I think this is more about brain than mind, and has too many numbers for my taste. How about speaking about the four approaches to study the mind - positively? Or something related to an image? - Looking forward to FAC. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:44, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: Thanks for the review! Some more suggestions:

ALT1: ...that psychology, neuroscience, cognitive science, and philosophy each offer unique perspectives for studying the mind?

ALT2: ...that diverse fields study the mind, including psychology, neuroscience, cognitive science, and philosophy?

ALT3: ...that disorders of the mind can result from factors like genetic predispositions, maladaptive beliefs, and social circumstances?

ALT1 & ALT2 are about fields of inquiry, ALT3 is about mental disorders. Any preferences? Phlsph7 (talk) 08:19, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

I like ALT2 best, with the bold article in front. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:15, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:21, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

The mind is responsible for phenomena like perception, thought, feeling, and action.

ALT4: ...that the mind is studied through various fields of scientific inquiry, including psychology, neuroscience, cognitive science, and philosophy?

Would ALT4 be better? I also thought something along the lines of the mind being in pursuit of understanding itself but not sure if that would be supported by the sources. I also think this image would work well.Polyamorph (talk) 07:25, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello Polyamorph and thanks for your suggestions. I think ALT4 would also work as an alternative to ALT2. We would probably have to remove the word "scientific" since it is not clear whether philosophy qualifies as a science:

ALT4a: ...that the mind is studied through various fields of inquiry, including psychology, neuroscience, cognitive science, and philosophy?

I slightly prefer ALT2 since it uses active voice and is a little shorter, but I would also be fine with ALT4a.

I agree about the image. If there is a free image slot in the queue, it could be used. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:13, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

OK, no worries, ALT2 is fine. I think this deserves to have the top slot! Polyamorph (talk) 08:16, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

I also believe that ALT2 is fine. The image is licensed. However, I personally feel that it tries to illustrate the capacities of the mind and fails - at least for me, can't see "though" and "action" at a glance. But that may be just me. If you want to use that image, you will need some form of saying (pictured) in ALT2a to come. Good luck with that, I'll watch. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:25, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

For the picture, we could use

ALT2a: ...that diverse fields study the mind (pictured), including psychology, neuroscience, cognitive science, and philosophy?

You are right that it's difficult to illustrate an abstract concept such as the mind. Using a light bulb as a symbol of thought or a hammer in hand as a symbol of action is not that uncommon but how easily people understand these symbols may depend on their cultural background. The image is not essential to the hook so if there are doubts, we could also go without it. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:39, 14 October 2024 (UTC)