Talk:Hot and cold cognition

Bibliography: ^{[1] [2] [3]}

(Ng179320 (talk) 00:27, 11 July 2011 (UTC))

I liked the expansion of this article which was well explained and thorough in the information that was presented. It is still a short article although the expansion is certainly noticable considering the article used to be just a few lines and barely even a paragraph. The subject matter was interesting and hope that it will continue to be expanded upon over time. --Keith Siebel (talk) 20:42, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I thought that since it was so short, the information you included was vital and helped with a total, overall expansion. It's hard when there isn't much to go off of. I liked the info you did present. I think that one way to further improve is to try some light reading off the web. However, I'm not certain as I did not look this up. Good job.--Rgearin09 (talk) 23:03, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

The article on Hot Cognition had a good base for a successful article. It provided insight into what Hot Cognition was by exploring the key aspects associated with it. The article also contrasted Hot Cognition with its oppossite but complementary condition, Cold Cognition. A very good part of this article was the use of examples. By providing examples, the article allows readers to connect with the text better, furthering its educational value. However, even with these things in mind,the article could be improved. More subject matter and a greater number of reliable sources could have been used. In addition to this, further examples could have been provided, and more studies on the matter could have been cited. Overall, this article has a very good basic foundation, but leaves room for improvement.--RKennedy06 (talk) 17:21, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

You did a great job at editing this article. there are no spelling errors. you didnt close paraphrase or copy. you had a short but to the point edit which was short but still filled with information that was helpful in many ways. I think you should just need to add a little bit more. but good job. User:BBWiki11 --BBWiki11 (talk) 05:04, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Our first major change to the Wikipedia article will be to create a separate cold cognition page in order to highlight the distinction between the two thought processes of hot and cold cognition. The current page does not differentiate the processes very clearly, so by creating a separate Wikipedia page it will be easier to identify cold and hot cognition as different processes. We would move the cold tasks to the new cold cognition page. We would also add more to the hot cognition tasks such as the neutral versus negative syllogisms tasks presented by Goel, and Vartanian (2011) that shows that logical reasoning is affected by hot cognition and emotion. 2. The next revision we have planned is to add how hot cognition changes with development. This is based on the research by Metcalfe and Mischel (1999) who found that participants who completed the delay of gratification study were more successful when they were older and were under less stress because they employed cold cognitive strategies instead of hot cognitive strategies. We would place this additional evidence under the development and neuroanatomy section and it will further explain the developmental difference in cognitive processes. 3. An additional change we have is to add evidence from the article “Do you use your head or follow your heart? Self-location predicts personality, emotion, decision making, and performance" under the recent evidence section to provide further explanation for the phenomenon of hot cognition. This study provides support for the distinction between hot and cold cognition because it shows that people who are head-located considered themselves more logical, rational and interpersonally cold and made decisions and had higher grade point averages. On the other hand, people who were heart-locators were typically more emotional, feminine and interpersonally warm and made more emotional rather than rational decisions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robinsr7070 (talk • contribs) 03:55, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Seems it would be best to merge these topics into one article (Hot and cold cognition?). — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 13:10, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

We actually just split it into two articles because one page was made entitled Hot Cognition which covered both topics, since the two are different we made the separate page and linked them together. Psyeditor (talk) 19:04, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Well yeah but wouldn't it be more convenient to talk about these topics in the same article? — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 19:10, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

If the key to the concept is the distinction between hot and cold, then (imo) that would be the better solution. But crafting a single page would require some careful editorial work. 2c, 86.183.110.49 (talk) 19:28, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Agreed and  Done Klbrain (talk) 08:28, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

The Recent Evidence section should be merged into the main text. The article should give an overview of what is known, not split it up by the date of research. Ashmoo (talk) 10:02, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm moving this recently-added text here because it's inappropriate for the article, but there may be a useful point worth extracting from it. The cited is inadequate: the source is a scholarly book published by a reputable publisher, but the book is an edited volume of works by lots of different authors, so it doesn't point us to a verifiable argument. The wording of the added text is so grammatically convoluted it's hard to discern what it's trying to say that's relevant to the article. The "criticism" offered doesn't seem to be a criticism of the concepts of hot and cold cognition, so it needs to be spelled out what is being criticised (probably in the relevant article rather than this article), what the critical argument is, and who makes it. ==Evolutionary problems and criticism== One evolutionarily informed criticism of the concept of hot and cold cognition and its entire premise of a negative correlation between caring and rationality is that while rationally informed decisions on matters relevant to life and death may give a lifesaving effect capable of evolutionarily outweighing the energy costs of a brain that can think rationally, a potential to think rationally when and only when it did not matter to survival would have the costs but not the benefits and could therefore not be selected for by evolution. It is therefore argued that evolution of brains capable of thinking rationally selects for brains in which there is no trade-off between caring and rationality at all.<ref>Evolution of the Human Brain: From Matter to Mind, Michel A. Hofman, published 2019-11-06</ref> MartinPoulter (talk) 12:43, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

This article is the subject of an educational assignment supported by the Wikipedia Ambassador Program.

The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}} by PrimeBOT (talk) on 16:27, 2 January 2023 (UTC)