Talk:Chunking (psychology)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 Portal |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, which collaborates on Psychology and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project.
|
||||||||
For an October 2004 deletion debate over this page see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Chunking
- Note that the article is very different since that debate and many of the comments below took place.
- The article has also been split into several articles, and this one renamed from "Chunking".
This is very, very close to gibberish. High-falutin' gibberish, but gibberish nonetheless. - DavidWBrooks 13:01, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
"The Wikipedia community exhorts users to be bold in updating articles.
Wikis develop faster when people fix problems, correct grammar, add facts, make sure the language is precise, and so on. It's okay. It's what everyone expects. So you should never ask, "Why aren't these pages copyedited?" Amazingly, it all works out. It does require some amount of politeness, but it works. You'll see.
If someone writes an inferior or merely humorous article or article stub, or outright patent nonsense, don't worry about their feelings. Correct it, add to it, and, if it's a total waste of time, replace it with brilliant prose (and relegate the deletions to bad jokes and other deleted nonsense or the corresponding talk page). That's the nature of a Wiki."
Go ahead Big Fuss, delete it, or redirect it to my userpage. (embryio cont'd)
Despite the obvious disgust of the reviewer this embryo also examplifies how one can develop a theme by using anti-taxoboxing style for the sake of producing better narrative, hoping for the success of wikipedia not just as a table of tabloid facts to look up, but as a reader for people who enjoy thinking and musing and looking at things from a fresh angle.
Apogr 12:14, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Original research?
Is this by any chance original research? If not, it still needs some work to be more encyclopedic and it needs references. For your convenience:
There are also a few more style guides and things like that at the top of my user page, which you can get to by clicking on my user name at the end of this sentence. -Seth Mahoney 00:50, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
Thank you for your advice. It is not that I am not aware of those guidelines, rather I feel I need to articulate my point by using a number of scales, sometimes not clearly separated as they are not either in reality. I guess you are familiar with fractals, if not, please, have a go at them and then we could continue discussing the subject in more specific details.
Apogr 16:19, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- The style guidelines exist for a reason, and were put together by democratic process. Not that they are they holiest of holies, but they aren't to be disregarded because one editor fines them confining. Please do some editing, including correcting the style and providing print references, or this page will have to be listed on Votes for Deletion. -Seth Mahoney 19:34, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
Go ahead with the deletion and remember one last quote from Goethe
"Die Beschreibung zeigt sich der Meister"
Or in English "deliminiting makes you a master" which has several senses as you call it (in fact contexts) one being that finding the delimiters of anything in focus is the keyword in undertstanding, with verbal input as one example.
When people had no means to protray things but in two dimensions, in drawings, for instance, the relation of things were also identified in a limited fashion, mainly hierarchical.
Now we can imagine and represent a lot more number of relationas, spatial networks included, which are more difficult to repreent in a linear (textual) fashion, no doubt. But denying it or calling it original research is a simple narow-minded blunder.
Lots of luck for the censorship displayed in taxoboxing.
Apogr 08:32, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Considering that you haven't bothered to address anyone's concerns about the style of this page or about getting any references (if it is not original research, you should be able to find references) except with personal attacks, and considering that my only request was that you adhere to the existing Wikipedia style guidelines, your tone is entirely unwarranted. -Seth Mahoney 17:10, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)
- By the way, you're welcome to participate in the deletion debate if you want. For the record, it is looking like the consensus will be to either make this page a redirect or to rewrite it from scratch. -Seth Mahoney 18:35, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)
Thank you folks, now the articel looks as it should be. ~~
[edit] "Incorrect" association?
What, exactly, is "incorrect" about associating the concept with Miller's paper, in which Miller uses the word "chunk," notes that "The span of immediate memory seems to be almost independent of the number of bits per chunk," and gives an example of the use of "chunking" to memorize 40-bit strings of binary digits?
- Miller suggested that 2-3 bits of information (ie, 7'ish items) might be encoded per dimension of some attribute. Remembering 40-digit numbers is about creating an association between short sequences and and information held in longer term memory. Will look up some sources. Derek farn 10:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Please cite a source for this being "incorrect," and give a source that indicates what the correct origin would be, if not Miller. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:34, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
- But Miller's 7±2 paper is quite clear on there not being a fixed number of bits in the span of immediate memory, and that the number of bits can be affected by recoding and chunking. 7±2 is not the number of bits. The reason he calls it a "magical" number is that it kept popping up in different contexts, not just "bits." The span of immediate memory is, according to Miller—I don't know what they're saying these days—about seven vaguely defined thingies. Dpbsmith (talk) 16:00, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
The entry on cognitive science at Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy states that "George Miller... proposed that memory limitations can be overcome by recoding information into chunks, mental representations that require mental procedures for encoding and decoding the information." [1]. Historically, in the psychological literature the source of chunking is generally attributed to Miller. Perhaps the section in this article on Magic number 7 could be summarised and then linked to the main article. A more general description of chunking and its uses could then be expanded. --Comaze 12:04, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. Are you volunteering :-) Derek farn 12:51, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
