Talk:Gestalt psychology

message: [sorry for potentially bad wiki-etiquette, I have no idea what I'm doing]
the end of the intro section states "Gestalt theory, it is proposed, allows for the deconstruction of the whole situation into its elements" ... surely the opposite is true? As in the whole point of the Gestalt idea would be that the whole is more than the sum of its elements" ? Could someone please double-check that?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.107.243.22 (talk) 15:14, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  intro section 

message: How do you add illustrations to this article?
This article needs illustrations--crucial to teaching about Gestalt. Thanks! Dpr 02:42, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contributions 

message: The statement about the soap bubble is wrong. I know nothing about Gestalt Psychology, but a lot about math. There IS a mathematical formula for the surface of a spherical soap bubble ( |r| = constant); moreover, there is a mathematical theory explaining how it comes about (the calculus of variations). Whoever thought up the soap bubble example was probably unfamiliar with the math. OK, fine, so recast the statement so it says, "X" (Jung?) said: "Soap bubble yadda yadda yadda."   Don't need to go into the math in this article (though might want to cross-link for the curious), but try not to make false statements.
Gestalt theory is talking about visual experience, therefore in the case of 'soap bubble' it is about the various 'visual' forces that balance each other in order to reudce 'visual' tention. It is not about physical
formulation - the 'calculus of variations'. I know a little about mathmatics, but I do know something about Gestalt theory. I think you should 'try not to make false statements' before you have a basic understanding of the theory.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iwylu (talk • contribs) 03:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment by someone else 

message: sorry, maybe it's the size, but it took me a lot of time and effort just see there was a dog in the picture. try showing it around the size it is, on the monitor screen or showing bigger illustrations. that's because now that i know there is a dog there, i can find it, but until i read it, i couldn't tell what was in the picture. capi 00:44, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  the dog 

message: I seem to remember that there were 7 laws, not 6.  Wasn't there a 'Law of simplicity', whereby two overlapping silhouettes are still perceived as two shapes, rather than the single complex shape they make up?  It's been a long time since I studied it, so I could be wrong. --HappyDog 14:26, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:   Prägnanz? - is there a missing law 

message: If you can't see the dog in the emergence test, pierce a small hole in a piece of paper and look through that. The paper masks everything from your peripheral vision so that your brain concentrates on the information in the picture. You'll then probably see the dog instantly. After that, you'll never be able to interpret the picture any other way. BrownBean 12:19, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Helpful tip

message: I'm just curious how anyone would relate Gestalt Psychology to ministry.
Shouldn't one spell Pragnanz correctly Prägnanz? It is still a German word and has not really become an English word. Any objections?
Please fix this page. I've tried fixing it but I don't have time to fine tune my mistakes. -Bhargav_mr 167.206.174.75 13:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Stuff...

message: The following statement is made in the introduction: 
"Gestalt theories of perception are often criticized for being descriptive rather than explanatory in nature.  In some scholarly communities (eg. computational neuroscience), thus, Gestalt principles are viewed as redundant or uninformative".
  The current location of the supporting citation is this web page: http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~smgxscd/ContourResearch.html.
This web page appears to be related to computational models useful for contour mapping tasks.  It makes no argument that Gestalt principles are either redundant or uninformative.  Previous versions had a different sentence and perhaps the purpose of the link was once an example of what computaional neuroscience is concerned with.  If so, perhaps the link belongs in the Computational Neuroscience article.  On the other hand, maybe a web page supporting the statement exists on the web site, but the link references the wrong one. -Mak 19:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Supporting citation does not support 

message: I am curious why under the Reification header - which is about how the mind 'completes' pictures - there is a "see also" link to Reification (fallacy) - which is about treating an abstract as a physical entity. I see that they are somewhat related, but I don't see why people reading this article would be so interested in the other one that it warrants a link. Can anyone clarify, or should we take the link out? Frostlion 21:25, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seconded! I am here because of the a similar observation. In fact, I don't think that these two senses of "reification" are related in any way. Reconstructing the idea of a 3D object from contour hints is not the same thing as making a fallacious argument by supposing abstract concepts to be physically real.192.139.122.42 (talk) 22:10, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference to "Reification (fallacy)" 

message: The article uses the image of a dog to demonstrate the idea of emergence, however this isn't demonstrating emergence but rather the lack of it. The paragraph in the article explicitly states that the dog is not made up of the individual parts of a dog, but that it is seen as a whole immediately, thus going against emergence. Should it be reworded to reflect this? — metaprimer (talk) 16:05, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Emergence demonstration example 

message: I won't pretend to the level of erudition in that comment. My simpler criticism extends to the POV tone of the article as a whole: the statement that the weakness of Gestalt Psychology is that it is  descriptive rather than explanatory is made repeatedly, not just under "criticisms". A branch of psychology that is referenced as much as Gestalt is must surely have made some positive contribution.
--207.81.123.251 (talk) 00:37, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Agreed with "POV Criticism" 

message: I think someone has had a little "fun" in the 1st paragraph of the "Origin" section.  I don't know enough about Wiki - or Gestalt - to attempt to correct it myself.  And pardon my ignorance if there is a valid connection!
24.7.12.86 (talk) 02:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed it. It's easy to edit WP. Just click on the "edit this page" tab at the top. You don't even need a username to begin editing (although its helpful!). Famousdog (talk) 18:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "doobies"? 

message: The article says "(See History of Psychology by David Hothersall (2004), chapter seven, for complete history)" but I think this information deserves to be in the article itself, not referenced. There is also an "Origins" section, but this lacks dates like a History section should have.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.126.165.218 (talk) 17:31, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  History Section Badly Needed 

message: I wanted to understand better how exactly it was opposed to structuralism and Wundt. While structuralism's conflict with Gestalt was apparent - Wundt is another issue entirely. I believe from what I understood so far that the phrase should be changed to "In psychology, gestalt is opposed to Titchener's structuralism(psychology)." 
The page on Wundt so far reads "Wundt is argued by some writers to have been a devout foundationalist, working tirelessly to understand the intricacies of the areas of knowledge he studied to form a coherent, atomistic understanding of the universe." which would kind of go against the holistic approach gestalt would propose... but it seems so far that nobody knows what Wundt believed.
I believe also that the criticism article should maybe include some reference to structuralism or Wundt - as it is now... structuralism and Wundt are only mentioned in the lead.--Kiyarrlls-talk 00:01, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  opposed to structuralism & Wundt? 

message: I have restored the page top templates calling for more citations and the attention of an expert because there has been no recent discussion about them here, and I see no consensus for their removal. I have no objection to removing them if a consensus to do so develops here. -- Donald Albury 10:11, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page improvement templates removed 

message: Add (German for pithiness)  99.19.43.8 (talk) 02:35, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add [[:de:Prägnanz|German for ''pithiness'']] 

message: According to Wikipedia standards, this article does not meet "good citation" requirements for various reasons. 
1. The notification located at the top of the article, highlighting the need for further citation and sourcing. Without sufficient background information, from reliable sources, the article very well may present information incorrectly or inaccurately. 
2. Unsourced opinions and value statements. Including generalities throughout the opening paragraph specifically indicates information that is without source. Looking back, including information that is generalized spreads knowledge too thin. 
3. Unnamed groups of people. In the section, "Gestalt Views in Psychology" a remarkably low number of sources are employed. Little citation and vague information is too general and should be replaced with more specific links. 
4. The criticism section is incredibly short, suggesting a lack of sufficient information. Previously, citations have been the primary concern but towards the end of the article, lack of information all together is more alarming. 
--Spearmanm (talk) 02:26, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evaluation 

message: User Erindal added this sentence at the beginning of the article: "Gestalt psychology tries to understand the laws of our ability to acquire and maintain stable percepts in a noisy world." The words "stable" and "noisy" are not opposites. Also, "noisy world" is metaphorical and unclear.Lestrade (talk) 03:18, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree! Maybe we should just change the word noisy into unstable? Lova Falk talk 15:10, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

text: I have left Erindal a message, I hope s/he'll read this. Lova Falk talk 17:27, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Mixed adjectives

message: As far as I can see, it's just a random collection of images with no explanation as to why they're chosen, or what their purpose is.2001:630:212:238:7254:D2FF:FEC5:1EF6 (talk) 10:44, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is the purpose of the gestalt and design section? 

message: The second paragraph of this Wikipedia entry says that "The whole is other than the sum of the parts", citing a 2010 article by Michael Tuck.  That source doesn't provide any support for the "The whole is other than the sum of the parts" statement, and I've been unable to run it down.
I have done some research, and can verify a version of "the whole is different from the sum of its parts" from Heider 1977, and "the whole is something else than the sum of its parts" from Koffka 1935.  I've written this up at http://coevolving.com/blogs/index.php/archive/synergy-parts-wholes/#two .
My concern is now that people are using Wikipedia as a source of information, and are copying this other than phrase, when it's unverified.  
If the original source is the 2003 page at http://www.intropsych.com/ch04_senses/whole_is_other_than_the_sum_of_the_parts.html , that article cites the Heider 1977 article, which clearly reads different from rather than other than.  I am not a psychologist, and have never studied Gestalt, but am a diligent stickler for citations.
If someone can find the other than language, I would appreciate that. I think that I'll let some time pass, and if no one can actually find a source where Koffka wrote or spoke these, words, we should change the text in Wikipedia.  Daviding (talk) 23:41, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Koffka on "the sum of the parts" 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Gestalt psychology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120222044129/http://ontology.buffalo.edu/smith/book/FoGT/Contents.htm to http://ontology.buffalo.edu/smith/book/FoGT/Contents.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:20, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I taught Psychology for many years, and do not remember coming across how "the whole is more than the sum total of its parts" to be more correctly translated as "the whole is other than the sum total of its parts". Thank you Wikipedia  - you are still educating me. Vorbee (talk) 17:26, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Original Phrase

message: This article could more clearly spell out how Max Wertheimer is normally considered the founder of Gestalt psychology, and how Kurt Lewin applied Gestalt principles to social and developmental psychology. Vorbee (talk) 17:32, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Max Wertheimer

message: Can a suitable dog image be obtained and added to the Properties / Emergence section? Because that section begins with "This is demonstrated by the dog picture,..." it seems particularly important to provide an example of that picture. See: http://optical-illusions.wikia.com/wiki/Emergence  for an example. I am not clear on the intellectual property rights status of that image. Thanks! --Lbeaumont (talk) 21:31, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dog image 

message: This article seems reasonably sourced, and I'm not sure where the neutrality issue lies, if it's even still there. Can these two templates be removed? On another note, this article switches between parenthetical citations and ref tags randomly, so I added a 'citation style' template.--Megaman en m (talk) 21:53, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  current templates status 

message: Whoever spends their time making this kind of an article better by healthy debate are my kind of people. The detail and clearness are great, and... its greatly scratching the itch of this possibly a little-bit-high fellow human. Thank you. -the rest of humanity 96.41.90.174 (talk) 08:33, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  thank you! 

message: — Assignment last updated by Rahneli (talk) 20:11, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Psychology Capstone

message: to both then and now mathematics is the foundation of the study of ultra. HexClock (talk) 18:30, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disc Gestalt