Talk:Time perception

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 May 2020 and 6 July 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ramyamanikkan. Peer reviewers: Graceshin1004.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 11:23, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Discrimination
If any "Relator" feels, like I do, that the description throughout this article is bigoted against those who live in-time (in the present) then would they please amend it accordingly. It should be noted that most of the worlds charismatic heroes and eccentric geniuses were of my type, and not that of the bigoted author.

Long Term/Age
The two sections labeled "long term" and "age" say basically the same thing. One of them should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.207.132.76 (talk) 07:00, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Merge from Sense of time
I'd like to suggest we move sense of time here. Title is more apt and they cover exactly the same topic. Famousdog (talk) 09:41, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

No discussion of merge fromSpecious present
I see no previous discussion of merging Specious present article into this Time perception article. This article is mostly about psychology. Specious present (or what was of it) treats the ideas more philosophically. There is ALSO nothing in this lede to indicate another apprach is covered. --JimWae (talk) 20:40, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Difference in Age (Long-Term section)
Some information presented concerning ratios of ages is incorrect. First, f person A has age x, and person B has age x + k, the ratio of A's age to B's age is x/(x+k). The rate of change of this function as x increases is k/(x+k)^2. This is not an exponential function. Second, the claim that 'a younger person "catches up" to an older person by a power of two' is ambiguous and inaccurate. I don't see what this part of the "Long-Term" section adds to the article, and I propose it be deleted. (Bilichj (talk) 06:21, 12 October 2012 (UTC))

Personality characteristics
I suggest that this entire section be scrapped. It's an extraordinarily dragged-out summary of a single article from the "Academy of Management Review," and the corporate-ese terms that it presents don't have anything to do with psychology. At most it should be shortened to a paragraph or two, the way it's currently written suggests (incorrectly) that it's presenting some commonly-held view among psychologists. This is at best marginally relevant information that doesn't belong in this article. --68.51.78.38 (talk) 17:34, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree, and I "boldly" went ahead and chopped out most of that material, leaving the lead paragraph in place. Looie496 (talk) 17:41, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Relative to what?
"Humans can perceive relatively short periods of time"

Relative to what? Our own perception of our time perception? — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Diala (talk • contribs) 04:37, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi John Diala, thank you for your question. I removed the sentence as it was unsourced and confusing.  Lova Falk     talk   18:14, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Reliable sources and encyclopaedic style
Concerning my previous edit which was partially reverted in this edit, please keep in mind the following guideline:

Clearly the phrase "In 2011, Professor Droit-Volet and Sandrine Gil, a lecturer on cognition and learning at Poitiers University, France, published a study" is inappropriate and needs to go. The citation supplies information about who carried out the study and when it was carried out. It should not be mentioned in the text. Generally the only place this type of information is appropriate is in a history section of an article (e.g., researchers who established or otherwise had a major impact on the field and are so recognized by major awards like the Nobel Prize.)

Hence details like "students were shown extracts from films known to induce fear" are generally not appropriate. Focus on what the research says about the subject of the article, not what the article says about the research or researchers.

Furthermore per WP:MEDRS, secondary sources are required to support medical claims. The supplied source: is a primary Randomized Controlled Trial. This is not acceptable source. Unless reliable secondary source can be supplied, this entire paragraph should be removed.

Finally I note that many other parts of this article have similar problems. The entire article needs careful editing and trimming. Boghog (talk) 02:23, 4 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree to some extent. I was not aware of that first policy which you cited; that policy does make sense and does explain why you removed that part of the paragraph. Also, I definitely do agree that that section needed a source.
 * Thank you for giving me a chance to make another edit rather than just reverting my previous edit; I am very grateful for that, and I think that it's a much better way of dealing with this sort of conflict than starting a revert/edit war.
 * I found and cited the study about the films which was previously not actually cited, which fixes the biggest problem. I also removed the part which–as you rightly say–does arguably "hype" the study.


 * However, there are two linked points with which I disagree with you.


 * The first is that the entire paragraph should be removed unless a secondary source can be supplied. Obviously it is true that the paragraph would be improved by a reliable secondary source, but I've looked at the MEDRS, and it seems to me that it doesn't prohibit all use of primary sources. The claim made in the study isn't really a controversial one.


 * The second point on which I'd disagree with you is your assertion that the details on the study's methods should be removed. I think that the study's methods really are relevant, which is partly because all we have at the moment is one primary source, not a whole series of different experiments that point to the same result.
 * In other words, I think that the paragraph contains pertinent information and thus should not be removed, but at the same time this information is from only one primary source (as you mention), so I think that cutting out the study's methods and presenting just the researchers' own conclusions would give an undue appearance of broad consensus on the subject.
 * Hence it seems to me that the best option is to say just what actually happened in the experiment (obviously summarised), rather than just given the researchers' interpretation of these results, and then given that interpretation only in a way that makes it clear that it is just the interpretation of a small group, and is not necessarily the scientific community's consensus. That is why I left Droit-Volet's name in (despite your valid point about not hyping the study), since the source says that this interpretation is what she has argued in the media.


 * I am not at all an expert on medical science or even on editing Wikipedia's articles on the subject, so I understand that my edits might well be flawed. If you feel that there are further problems, I would welcome a discussion, since your earlier points were valid and I honestly think that my new edit is better as a result of me now being able to bear your points in mind. BreakfastJr (talk) 03:51, 4 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Likewise, thanks you for your willingness to discuss this paragraph on the talk page. You are correct that WP:MEDRS does not prohibit the use of primary sources, but at the same time, it does say that primary sources must be used very cautiously. Furthermore if relevant secondary sources are available, they should be used in preference to primary sources.  In particular:


 * The Gil and Droit-Volet primary source mentioned above is almost 5 years old. I think 5 years qualifies as a reasonable amount of time. If a secondary source that reviews this and related work can be found, then the details of how this one individual study was carried out become less critical and should be omitted.


 * One may be able to find a relevant secondary source by looking through list list of articles that cite the Gil and Droit-Volet primary source. According to Google Scholar, this article has been cited 34 times. Boghog (talk) 08:03, 4 January 2014 (UTC)


 * A list of available secondary sources on time perception may be found here. See also the banner at the top of this talk page for additional links. Given the large number of review articles that have been published on this subject, it should be possible to replace many of the primary sources in this article with secondary sources. Boghog (talk) 14:51, 4 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I understand and agree with your points, and I'm happy with the edits you've made to the page. BreakfastJr (talk) 01:57, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Theories
Scalar Expectancy Theory (SET) is pretty much the most promising theory about time perception. It shouldn't be missed out. Linlinbrown (talk) 22:36, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Linguistics
Linguist91, I disagree that the relevance of this topic to linguistics should be given such prominance in the lead. Especially on the basis on one book. What you are actually talking about is that time perception is a topic of interest to some researchers in cognitive linguistics, not the much wider field of linguistics. CL is a school of thought on the boundary between psychology and linguistics and as far as I can tell not a universally accepted one. On the other hand, time perception is widely studied in psychology and neuroscience. Convince me a) that you mean linguistics not CL, and b) that time perception is a big enough research area in CL to justify its inclusion in the lead. Famous dog   (c) 10:17, 7 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree that it's a topic of discussion mostly discussed in CL. So I give you that and thank you for making it more precise. Secondly, Its inclusion is not merely based upon the basis on one book. I could provide you with many more articles and books in that respect if you want to. Linguist91 (talk) 12:00, 7 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I am a theoretical linguist myself, I can tell you that even linguists who are in support of UG are doing extensive research on visual and time perception. (Again, I can provide you with related links) Linguist91 (talk) 12:04, 7 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I think you're going to have to. If, as you say, "linguists ... are doing extensive research on visual and time perception" then aren't they doing psychology and not linguistics? Since I do research in visual and time perception I would be interested to hear what linguists have to say on the subject. Famous  dog   (c) 12:07, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

https://www.edge.org/conversation/lera_boroditsky-how-does-our-language-shape-the-way-we-think http://lera.ucsd.edu/papers/language-time.pdf http://doe.concordia.ca/copal/documents/3_Fulga.pdf https://books.google.com/books/about/Language_and_Time.html?id=UJCdngEACAAJ https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Structure_of_Time.html?id=eBimnvI1At8C http://www.linguistics.fi/templing-2016/

And a lot more Linguist91 (talk) 12:32, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

On language and vision: http://languageandvision.com Linguist91 (talk) 12:33, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

On Physics of Language: http://www.ling.ynu.ac.jp/pol2016/ Linguist91 (talk) 12:35, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

translation into Chinese Wikipedia
The version 18:02, 1 July 2017‎ Conejo23 of this article is translated into Chinese Wikipedia to expand an existing stub.--Wing (talk) 18:56, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Oddball
Could we have some clarity on what the 'oddball' is in this context? Experts could be reasonably expected to know that we're talking about the oddball_paradigm, but to most English speakers, an 'oddball' is simply a peculiar person. An experimental design wherein eccentrics approach the subject, flee from the subject, or stand motionless in front of the subject might be of interest, but not relevant to time perception.205.133.125.187 (talk) 20:13, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Merge from Tachypsychia
I suggest we merge from Tachypsychia. Famous dog (woof)(grrr) 10:35, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Seems reasonable to me, although I would want to hear from some other WP:MED folks.  - Mark D Worthen PsyD   (talk)  05:33, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Merge. I still want to know what others would say. The articles, Time perception and Tachypsychia seem pretty homogeneous; Both are about the perception of time. Though the latter is slightly specific and tends to focus on time dilation, or how time slows down, or speeds up, in certain events of our life. The former is just generally about the perception of time. But all in all, they're both pretty identical. You can exchange virtually any content or categories in either articles and they won't be out of place. ~ Meganesia (talk) 07:44, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The most important factor, in my opinion, is that the sources are too weak to justify an independent article on tachypsychia. Virtually all the sources that use the term are primary. Looie496 (talk) 13:38, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Not Merge. Tachypsychia is a medical condition while Time perception is a broader concept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Walidou47 (talk • contribs) 17:18, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support merge, on the grounds that tachypsychia is not a neurological condition (the references don't support that claim), but rather a fairly recent descriptive term used by some to describe the long-known subjective time dilation in response to a range of stimuli. These are already discussed on the Time perception page, particularly at Time perception and Time perception. Wikipedia is not a dictionary so we don't need separate pages for each term used to describe the same concept. Klbrain (talk) 19:52, 26 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Not Merge. They are too different things.  They should have their own separate articles. 2001:569:BC37:1E00:4C26:1F71:7B73:FC61 (talk) 14:00, 29 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Merge. If thypsychia is a distinct medical condition, it can be covered in a section of time perception. There's too much overlap between the current articles to justify keeping them separate; most of the prose in thypsychia is actually about normal variations in perception and not pathology. -- Beland (talk) 02:03, 3 January 2020 (UTC)