928:"Psychology is prone to intellectual fads. The field can be criticized for embracing novel ideas and discarding prior ones without necessarily resolving the issues that gave rise to the earlier thinking. This charge, of course, is not unique to psychology; it applies to many of the sciences. The almost wholesale replacement of relativity theory by quantum mechanics in physics in the 20th century is one such example. The linear scala naturae reasoning of Spencer that largely supplanted the richer Darwinian evolutionary thinking is another. Yet, in recent years it has occasionally been recognized that the potential relevance of a body of theory or data does not disappear with its loss of popularity. Modern physics is reuniting relativity and the standard model under the banner of superstring theory, and the theory of punctuated equilibrium in evolutionary biology has made sense of a number of the more obscure factors in the Spencerian model." "A retrospective view of experimental psychology might yield similar insights. The rich tradition of research in the Gestalt mode is ignored in much modern work. Overshadowed by the long popularity of behaviorism and scattered by the chaos preceding the Second World War, Gestalt theory has had only a modest influence on modern thinking in such areas as cognitive psychology, beyond a few historical acknowledgments. Yet, in a wide variety of fields, it could be claimed that the Gestaltists "got there first." The focus on mental activity, the idea of isomorphic relationships between brain events and experience, and the inclusion of organismic and contextual factors in the study of psychological variables all were part of the Gestalt tradition. As psychology adopts ever more literal machine (computer) metaphors of mind and brain (metaphors typically of such complexity that a larger view is seldom taken or sought), it might be productive to examine again the Gestalt tradition, a tradition of experimental psychology focused on context and organism rather than on disembodied modular components of hypothetical mental and physical structures." (Sharps, & Wertheimer, 2000, p. 315)
370:
perception (which is NOT the whole, it refers to, but rather an inadmissible self limitation of our understanding of
Gestalt) we can translate Gestalt as the continuum / continuity of: Shape /Form, Colour, Texture, light effects like glare, movement and sound. Gestalt transmits physical properties and haptic experiences, which one may anticipate and may (or may not) experience, when getting closer and touching the artefact or natural being which we are thus observing. Talking of artefacts (as well as animals), we anticipate a sound, which fits the visual image. And also a kind of movement. E.g.: An Elephant moves differently from a Tiger. So: Why should a Jaguar (car) move like a Truck? However, beyond such simple example, we also anticipate a character, a way of "Being", based upon our perception of the whole, thus of a "Gestalt". Psychology of Perception, Information-Aesthetics and Semiotics are a key to nonverbal communication among beings as well as in the Design of Artefacts, in order to serve people, starting from man-artefact-relations. E.g. an airplane cockpit, where information should rather not mislead the "operators of complex systems" - Thus, we also relate Gestalt to Cybernetics: The art of steering a ship (machine, team, company) by means of information and feedback. All this may illustrate the enormous importance of conscientious understanding, use and criticism of Gestalt and Psychology of Perception, whereever decisions are made. Not only as customers, but as planners. And as directors deciding about offers and their reason to exist, in the eyes of their planned audiences as well as in the eyes of the rest of the world ... May this relate your theoretic perception and improvements regarding Gestalt and relate it to the responsibility of us all for a better world, which opens choices rather than directing the public. A comment by a "Gestalter" - a Definer of Gestalt - or, as current fashions call this profession occupied by too many unprofessional Wannabees: Design. Gerhard Eichweber www.value-design.org
868:"Perceptual grouping is the process by which elements in the visual image are aggregated into larger and more complex structures, i.e., "objects." This paper reports a study of the spatial factors and time-course of the development of objects over the course of the first few hundred milliseconds of visual processing. The methodology uses the now well-established idea of an "object benefit" for certain kinds of tasks (here, faster within-object than between-objects probe comparisons) to test what the visual system in fact treats as an object at each point during processing. The study tested line segment pairs in a wide variety of spatial configurations at a range of exposure times, in each case measuring the strength of perceptual grouping as reflected in the magnitude of the object benefit. Factors tested included nonaccidental properties such as collinearity, cotermination, and parallelism; contour relatability; Gestalt factors such as symmetry and skew symmetry, and several others, all tested at fine (25 msec) time-slices over the course of processing. The data provide detailed information about the comparative strength of these factors in inducing grouping at each point in processing. The result is a vivid picture of the chronology of object formation, as objects progressively coalesce, with fully bound visual objects completed by about 200 msec of processing." (Feldman, 2007, p. 816)
856:"Gestalt properties, such as proximity and good continuation, play a prominent role in human object recognition. Good continuation is a fundamental, low-level property of the visual system; it allows the observer to perceive smooth contour despite gaps or partial occlusion, permitting recognition of partially obscured objects. In the case of a gap, it allows edge relationships to become salient. This does not necessarily lead to visual completion, but it is a prerequisite of the process. The human visual system is able to rapidly and automatically complete missing visual information, and it has been suggested that the observer actually perceives the complete image despite partial occlusion (Kanizsa, 1979). Although the gestalt principle of good continuation clearly contributes to human and primate vision (see Fujita, 2001, 2006; Grossberg & Mingolla, 1985; Sekuler & Palmer, 1992; Yin, Kellman, & Shipley, 1997), the evidence relating to the operation of this principle in pigeon visual perception is unconvincing." (Kirkpatrick, Wilkinson, and Johnston, 2007, p. 273)
842:"Figure-ground organization refers to the visual perception that a contour separating two regions belongs to one of the regions. Recent studies have found neural correlates of figure-ground assignment in V2 as early as 10-25 ms after response onset, providing strong support for the role of local bottom-up processing. How much information about figure-ground assignment is available from locally computed cues? Using a large collection of natural images, in which neighboring regions were assigned a figure-ground relation by human observers, we quantified the extent to which figural regions locally tend to be smaller, more convex, and lie below ground regions. Our results suggest that these Gestalt cues are ecologically valid, and we quantify their relative power. We have also developed a simple bottom-up computational model of figure-ground assignment that takes image contours as input. Using parameters fit to natural image statistics, the model is capable of matching human-level performance when scene context limited." (Fowlkes, Martin, & Malik, 2007, p. 2)
1745:
whole is something else than the sum of its parts, because summing is a meaningless procedure, whereas the whole-part relationship is meaningful.â Koffka quoted in fact Euclid, and then corrected Euclidâs form of the phrase, by using the original form of
Aristotle. Of course, I cannot verify if Koffka already knew or not the original source, but since he was in fact already quoting a version of the phrase, it is incorrect to consider him as the original author. The actual source is obviously Aristotle: âThe totality is not, as it were, a mere heap, but the whole is something besides the partsâ. Metaphysics, Book VIII, 1045a.8â10. Another translation of Aristotle that i found: â âŚthings which have a plurality of parts, and which are not a total aggregate but a whole of some sort distinct from the partsâŚâ. I would also note that even if this quote of Aristotle is in fact always slightly taken out of context, nevertheless it is obviously Aristotle who coined the phrase, and it is obviously a fundamental principle in his whole metaphysics.
861:"To acquire a mature view of the visual environment, a person must organize individual parts into coherent wholes. Because there are an indefinite number of ways to organize the surfaces and edge fragments of visual displays, the question of how infants and children achieve perceptual organization has been a source of theoretical debate and empirical inquiry throughout the last century of scientific psychology. Some theorists have suggested that perceptual organization is developmentally late and crucially dependent on an extended period of learning visual and motor associations (Hebb, 1949; Piaget, 1952). Alternatively, Gestalt psychologists have long claimed that perceptual grouping reflects the activity of a nervous system that is naturally constrained to follow certain principles that impose organization from the very first encounter with a visual pattern (e.g., Kohler, 1929)." (Quinn & Bhatt, 2006, p. 1221)
903:"According to the Oxford English Dictionary, intuition is "the ability to understand or know something immediately, without conscious reasoning." Most people would agree that intuitive responses appear as ideas or feelings that subsequently guide our thoughts and behaviors. It is proposed that people continuously, without conscious attention, recognize patterns in the stream of sensations that impinge upon them. What exactly is being recognized is not clear yet, but we assume that people detect potential content based on only a few aspects of the input (i.e., the gist). The result is a vague perception of coherence which is not explicitly describable but instead embodied in a "gut feeling" or an initial guess, which subsequently biases thought and inquiry. To approach the nature of intuitive processes, we used functional magnetic resonance imaging when participants were working at a modified version of the
1052:
Even feature detection studied in both neuroscience and modeled in computational models do not explain how the brain perceives. The former merely makes statistical correlations between what a subject perceives and what the brain activity is at that time. The later then surmises a "theory" that this statistical correlation portends some mechanism that a computer can then replicate. Note, however, that these computational models still can not do what a three year old human can in terms of recognizing invariant objects in a myriad of contexts. This does not mean that the computational models are wrong, but it also does not render
Gestalt efforts - to observe and categorize what a three year old can do - as useless. In fact, it is quite the contrary. It is exactly such observations in other disciplines throughout history that have refined older assumptions in order to advance scientific understanding.
1111:
discovered independently, as it is more of a physical phenomenon, but the great likelihood is that this too relied on the discoveries of
Gestalt. Has this been credited as a result of Gestalt? If not, then we would have to look harder, and I think the great likelihood is that there is just a great injustice done here that we can not redress in this article. All of these discoveries are Gestalt, but for some unknown reason, most scientists in the field took great pains to distance themselves as far away as possible from the name. And I have another theory, too, about the reason for this, which is that the optical illusions of Gestalt are perhaps the most commonly recognized finding of Psychology, and scientists really hate it when some other science gets more popular attention than theirs....Gestalt has indeed found out the way in which Gestalt perception works, in many ways, all called something else.
873:"This study examined gestalt perception in high-functioning autism (HFA) and its relation to tasks indicative of local visual processing. Data on of gestalt perception, visual illusions (VI), hierarchical letters (HL), Block Design (BD) and the Embedded Figures Test (EFT) were collected in adult males with HFA, schizophrenia, depression and normative controls. Individuals with HFA processed gestalt stimuli less in accord with gestalt laws, particularly regarding the principle of similarity. Gestalt processing correlated positively with global processing of the HL. EFT and BD performance correlated negatively with VI susceptibility in HFA. All clinical groups succumbed less to VI than the normative sample. Results suggest decreased gestalt perception in HFA, being associated with a more general local visual processing bias." (Bolte, Holtmann, Poustka, Scheurich, & Schmidt, 2007, p. 1493)
1056:
updated by
Einstein and Quantum Theory to explain observations that were unthinkable in Newton's time. I bring these historical facts up to underscore the point that neither neuroscience nor computational models explain all that human perception can do; either in theory or in practice. Currently, vision science has made progress in correlating simple feature detection with neurons in the visual context. But, to date, there is no empirical data that explains how these fundamental feature detectors cohere in higher brain regions to perceive more complex objects in a scene. Gestalt theory, instead of proving the existing research wrong or holding future research back, actually help focus research to investigate what we can observe to be statistically significant about our capacity for higher order perception.
629:
Gestaltisms), thank you. Secondly, if neuroscience turns out to BE gestalt - what's the point of gestalt? Frankly, i think its only point is to allow people to sound clever and pontificate about vision/psychology without knowing the mechanics. As for the clash between the modular view of mind and the systems approach - we have learnt all this through computational and cognitive neuroscience, not gestalt. Gestalt theory never told us anything interesting, predictive or useful. Just a lot of generalisations. You say "Gestalt is the adequate description of neuroscientific explanations." Surely, neuroscientific explanations are an adequate description of themselves - why do we need gestalt? (as an addendum, i've changed the wording of the offensive sentence as gestalt has not really been
1324:
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.
1550:âs works. As it pertains to âthe whole is other...â I believe the Gestalt âTheoristsâ had a lot of freely flowing ideas regarding this quote & not 1 person is soley responsible for this quote. Although it may be true that Kurt Koffka rebuked people for misquoting him, from what Iâve seen, it doesnât seem fair to only attribute him to this quote. Additionally, I think bringing in Aristotleâs quote (or whoeverâs it is) as a contrast may help readers to better grasp the quotes as they are dealt with in culture & history. My searches were done with Bing searching the queries âthe whole is other than the sum of its partsâ & the same being preceeded with âErnest Mayrâ, although I myself havenât found anything attributing the quote to Mayr.
907:. Starting from our conceptualization that intuition involves an informed judgment in the context of discovery, we expected activation within the median orbito-frontal cortex (OFC), as this area receives input from all sensory modalities and has been shown to be crucially involved in emotionally driven decisions. Results from a direct contrast between intuitive and nonintuitive judgments, as well as from a parametric analysis, revealed the median OFC, the lateral portion of the amygdala, anterior insula, and ventral occipito-temporal regions to be activated. Based on these findings, we suggest our definition of intuition to be promising and a good starting point for future research on intuitive processes." (Volz & von Cramon, 2006, p. 2077).
644:
IS "descriptive", but there's nothing derogatory about descriptive theory. Theory guides the search for mechanisms and mechanisms elucidate theory. Without theory, mechanisms explain nothing (as there is no explanation, just computations). If we could replicate the human brain from all of it's mechanisms, would we have any significant understanding of how it works, i.e. something we could talk about with other people? Without mechanisms, theory is not inert if it makes behavioral predictions (though it is less likely to thrive from reciprocal advances). Some of the best
Psychology around today (including the Gestalt principles) come from Theories that make testable predictions about behavior, not necessarily about neurons.
1568:(a completeley different guy) who died before Koffka was born. At least some of his works are on the topic of âobject perceptionâ, the concepts of which are partially explained in the quote. It seems that there is already a lot of comfusion on the quote & this article in general, but Iâll leave some information on the textbook as a reference: A History of Modern Psychology eleventh edition bu Duane P. Schultz & Sydney Ellen Schultz ISBN-13: 978-1-305-63004-8 (C) 2016, 2012 Cengage Learning Print year 2015, print number 01 (I have no experience with citing textbooks, so I was exhaustive in what I thought might be relevant
891:"Before we can recognize a visual object, our visual system has to segregate it from its background. This requires a fast mechanism for establishing the presence and location of objects independently of their identity. Recently, border-ownership neurons were recorded in monkey visual cortex which might be involved in this task . In order to explain the basic mechanisms required for fast coding of object presence, we have developed a neural network model of visual cortex consisting of three stages. Feed-forward and lateral connections support coding of
620:
way: the old idea that mind functions can be attributed to specific brain sections has been largely disproven, as we now know that various brain sections are involved in any one operation, and are thus responsible for numerous functions: in short, neuroscience appears to favour a gestalt interpretation over an atomistic one. Gestalt is the adequate description of neuroscientific explanations -- the two are reciprocal. However, I didn't feel at liberty to remove the line being debated myself as I've never posted here before. - Anon
31:
1852:
835:
circle, a triangle, or a square. So, if there were no principle of closure, then, when given a forced choice between circle, triangle, and square, one would expect subjects to say circle only 33% of the time because they are simply guessing between three alternatives. The theoretical hypothesis is that subjects will say circle when shown the lines significantly more than 33% of the time. The null hypothesis is that subjects will say circle only 33% of the time or less. These are experimentally testable hypotheses.
1084:: We experience a "closed" figure because of the principle of "closure" - such a statement is useless and hardly compares to the formulation of Copernicus' theory of planetary motion (a feat of incredible deduction from the available evidence from careful observation of the motion of the planets - and possible without a theory of gravitation). We need a functional or computational account of how closure occurs, not just a statement that it does. Finally, if the criticism section is soooo offensively POV, then
895:. Neurons of the highest area respond to the presence of an object and encode its position, invariant of its form. Feedback connections to the lowest area facilitate orientation detectors activated by contours belonging to potential objects, and thus generate the experimentally observed border-ownership property. This feedback control acts fast and significantly improves the figure-ground segregation required for the consecutive task of object recognition." (Zwickel, Wachtler, & Eckhorn, 2007, p. 216)
85:
64:
1899:
271:
222:
22:
173:
95:
496:
first glance, but certainly delivers manyfold insight in our world of
Artefacts and their Gestalt. For more, also refer to "newer" books, like Attilio Marcolli: "Teoria del Campo" (Field Theory) as applied in Architecture and Design = Definiton of physical Artefacts) Direct Feedback, dialogue or enquieries welcome: Gerhard Eichweber, www.value-design.org
1762:
possibly koffka never said those words either, although certainly he lived at a time of the current english language, so maybe he was bilingual. Seems more likely the germanik influence in english would make it more likely the meaning of words would map directly 1-for-1 such that a quote should be considered the same original thought.
421:
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.
394:
first. I have only found wikipedia's administrators, and the editors who support them, to be self-serving, hateful, rude, greedy, proud, less than copy-and-paste, idiotic antichrists. The further implications for any branch of science to deviate from
Theologic roots is no different. - St. John the Baptist
1323:
According to
Knowledge 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
1051:
above, aptly shows in Point 1 above that Gestalt concepts do make predictions with statistical significance without necessarily explaining the mechanism. Science is as much about making statistical correlations between observations as it is about verifying mechanisms that underlie those correlates.
941:
Gestalt no longer enjoys the popularity it once had in psychology. The principles of gestalt psychology are descriptive in nature rather than explanatory. This has limited the ability of gestalt psychology to drive new research. In addition, alternative theories of perception have arisen that make no
834:
Consider the circle in the "Law of Closure" example in the Pragnanz section of this very Knowledge article. If the principle of closure were false, then people would not say they saw a circle. They would say they saw a group of lines. They would have to guess if you asked them to say whether it was a
619:
Surely this misses the whole point? The gestaltisms are examples of why an atomistic theory of the mind is not an adequate one, and a gestalt one is -- this doesn't stand in opposition to neuroscience, as neuroscience may well turn out to BE the gestalt explanation. In fact, it seems to be going this
522:
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
462:
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
1765:
So how...hmm.. surely this kinda question has to have come up before? Is there a way this kinda thing is consensus adjudicated? Academia must have rules about this kinda thing right? I'd venture to guess it depends on how the latin version of the phrase -- actually i think it would be greek now that
1110:
For instance, the study of the movement of the eye to take in relevant details would surely not have been studied had it not been known that we only require small details to make up a whole perception. The tiny circle of vision that actually makes up the full measure of our attention might have been
1106:
I totally agree with you, Wolfworks. I think the only productive direction to take, though, is basically to prove the article's and Famousdog's claims of uselessness wrong by showing the advances in the study of perception that have relied on the discoveries of Gestalt, at least ones where credit is
628:
do Gestaltisms show that an atomistic theory of the mind is not an adequate one? In my experience, the atomistic theory of mind (if by "atomistic" you mean psychological processes being reductible to the level of neurons and chemical processes) is progressing along quite nicely (without reference to
318:
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"Â ? Could someone please
1744:
Ref: âThe original famous phrase of Gestalt psychologist Kurt Koffka, "the whole is something else than the sum of its partsâ. Obviously, the author is Aristotle. The full quote from Koffkaâs book is: âIt has been said: The whole is more than the sum of its parts. It is more correct to say that the
949:
Thus, while gestalt principles are no longer a major focus of psychological research and have limited value as a general theoretical approach to perception, they continue to contribute to our undertanding of perception and remain a phenomenon to be explained by more modern theories of perception.
743:
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
643:
Just feel that some further reply is necessary here. If neuroscience turns out to validate the Gestalt prinicples, then we (Neuroscience?) should have been using Gestalt principles to guide investigations into neural substrates instead of "dumping Gestalt principles" or something like that. Gestalt
584:
They are certainly predictive enough to be useful to designers. For example, pretty much any visual technique that works well in computer interfaces (boxes, lines, lists, tables, buttons, tabs) can be explained in terms of these laws, and they can be used to make analytical evaluations to help with
495:
Rather, what you mean is covered by "Continuity" or, as tought in Italian: "Good Continuity" Interesting (optimistic) variant... See Gyorgy Kepes: "Language of Vision" as Key Book - and relate it to Siegfried Gedion: "Mechanisation takes Command" ... A combination, which may not appear obvious at a
1075:
of Psychology, however, the majority of the "principles" and "laws" identified by Gestalt theorists have now been elucidated (in whole or part) by other fields (comp neurosci, cog psych, visual sci, etc.) and the perceptual work of the Gestaltists is now thoroughly superceded. Learning by rote all
945:
Yet, the principles of gestalt psychology remain valid descriptions and continue to be used in current research. Researchers have demonstrated gestalt principles in animal perception, have discovered patterns in the development of gestalt principles, and have used gestalt principles to investigate
917:
If gestalt principles turn out to be the result of neural computations, then we still need a good section on gestalt principles. The gestalt researchers deserve credit for discovering the principles first. An encyclopedia (such as Knowledge) should be careful to credit discoveries appropriately.
666:
Regardless of the validity of the Gestalt principles, they are in fact widely used in some psychological research on attention. In order to reflect this (and remain neutral), I've changed the last sentence of the opening paragraph and added a section about their Applications to Modern Perceptual
1055:
Such examples include Copernicus's theory of planetary motion that wasn't proven until Galileo observed the moons of Jupiter. The "math" of the day supported the geocentric model via the elaborate mathematics of retrograde motion. Another example is the very useful Newtonian mechanics that was
1023:
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
603:
I think we'd be better off rephrasing this statement to something like, "In some scholarly communities (eg. computational neuroscience) Gestalt principles have been disregarded. In others (eg. perceptual psychology, display design), on the other hand, Gestalt principles continued to be used and
1761:
I dunno i guess it depends on whether you consider something translated as being the same thing as the "exact same set and order of words" -- obv aristotle never said jack in english, it didn't exist yet. I guess for that matter neither might potentially be the true "authors" of the phrase, bc
566:
Like Freud's theories, Gestaltisms are so vague and non-predictive that they are impossible to disprove, which is why they persist. Meanwhile, neuroscience is progressing quite nicely, thank you, without any reference to them... As it says in the article, they are descriptors of what happens in
393:
The use of "the whole is greater than the sum of its parts" is best understood as a derivative of "greater is He who is in you, than he who is in the world" (1 John 4:4). The problem with the article is that no attempt is made by wikipedia's administrators to see that this premise is put forth
1254:
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
1138:
Since the article has substantially changed and much of the criticism of Gestalt has been displaced to the (very short) 'criticisms' section, your agreement with Wolfworks would seem rather redundant. I don't understand your argument at all, and I don't buy this "Gestalt hasn't been properly
972:
Fujita, K. (2006). Seeing what is not there: Illusion, completion, and spatiotemporal boundary formation in comparative perspective. In E. A. Wasserman & T. R. Zentall (Eds.), Comparative cognition: Experimental explorations of animal intelligence (pp. 29â52). New York: Oxford University
776:
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
428:
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
369:
Above and first of all - and not only in English - the term Gestalt itself requires some cool sht definition and understanding. What does it mean, when we learn, that its meaning refers to any "Whole"? Holism is a nice reference. However, in more concrete terms, and departing from the visual
1246:
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
420:
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
1203:
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.
824:
The earlier discussion on Gestalt being discredited did not have an adequate defense of gestalt psychology. The criticism section of this article thus has a POV problem. The view that gestalt principles are defunct and should be replaced with computational neuroscience is a POV.
1046:
The article is overly occupied with "descriptive rather than explanatory" disclaimers that are not in the spirit of Knowledge. The general theory of relativity makes mathamatical predictions about gravity that are quite accurate, but it does not explain gravity. Similarly, the
1346:
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
1276:
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. --
1810:
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'
485:
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.
540:
Since the article mentions that "Gestalt theories of visual perception, especially the Law of Pragnanz have been largely discredited by progess in computational neuroscience" I am missing some reference further on as to what it is that is discredited exactly and why.
1697:
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 Knowledge - you are still educating me.
766:- 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?
1830:
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
1739:
998:
Quinn, P.C., & Bhatt, R.S. (2006). Are Some Gestalt Principles Deployed More Readily Than Others During Early Development? The Case of Lightness Versus Form Similarity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 32,
615:
Quoting Famousdog -- "Gestaltisms are so vague and non-predictive that they are impossible to disprove... As it says in the article, they are descriptors of what happens in vision. Not explanations, or disprovable theories. Bin them and move on."
732:"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".
1786:
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:
946:
perception in psychological disorders. Neuroscience has also started to deal with gestalt principles. Additionally, gestalt principles have found practical application in software engineering (e.g., interface design and artificial vision).
283:
1911:
1167:
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!
1447:
976:
Fujita, K., & Giersch, A. (2005). What perceptual rules do capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella) follow in completing partly occluded figures? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 31,
1461:
The second paragraph of this Knowledge 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
959:
Bolte, S., Holtmann, M., Poustka, F., Scheurich, A., & Schmidt L (2007). Gestalt perception and local-global processing in high-functioning autism. Journal Of Autism And Developmental Disorders, 37, .
886:
The dichotomy between gestalt principles and neuroscience is false. Here are two examples of gestalt principles in neuroscientific studies. The first includes gestalt principles in a computational model:
349:
02:42, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC) I have looked up Gestalt for an assignment in Introductory Psychology. Should the words "figural moment" that have no info when clicked be instead "figural movement"? âPreceding
992:
Kirkpatrick, K., Wilkinson, A., & Johnston, S. (2007). Pigeons discriminate continuous versus discontinuous line segments. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 33, 273-286.
1510:
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 Knowledge.
2009:
1864:
585:
design decisions. As long as a model makes reasonable predictions, it can be useful without being explanatory. But I guess this is a never-ending battle between psychologists and neuroscientists.
1754:
1766:
i'm thinking about it, aristotle would've spoke ancient greek i presume -- worked... like syntax wise? Can we get a greek expert in here who knows how that would break down in english/german?
1538:
To add to the issue, my mother is doing research on Gestalt Theory & came across this quote which she believes is wrongly attributed. I think she read in her textbook that it was actually
35:
1621:
604:
discussed today." I think that would more be more accurate statement (to prove my point, do a google scholar search for "gestalt vision" and you'll find quite a bit of recent stuff).
1451:
942:
reference to gestalt principles, with computational neuroscientific models offering an example. Computational neuroscience models of perception are not based on gestalt principles.
1011:
Yin, C., Kellman, P. J., & Shipley, T. F. (1997). Surface completion complements boundary formation in the visual integration of partly occluded objects. Perception, 26, 95â111.
1999:
1258:
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.--
938:
The view that gestalt principles are defunct and should be replaced with computational neuroscience is a POV. A more balanced criticism of gestalt might read something like this:
1639:
1635:
980:
Grossberg, S., & Mingolla, E. (1985). Neural dynamics of form perception: Boundary completion, illusory figures, and neon color spreading. Psychological Review, 92, 173â211.
2034:
264:
2014:
1437:
1008:
Volz, K.G., & von Cramon, D.Y. (2006). What neuroscience can tell about intuitive processes in the context of perceptual discovery. Journal Of Cognitive Neuroscience,18, .
215:
1215:
1443:
1231:
1032:
1002:
Sekuler, A. B., & Palmer, S. E. (1992). Perception of partly occluded objects: A microgenetic analysis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 121, 95â111.
655:
405:
359:
1836:
1771:
1014:
Zwickel, T., Wachtler, T., & Eckhorn, R. (2007). Coding the presence of visual objects in a recurrent neural network of visual cortex. Bio Systems, 89, 216-26.
507:
383:
330:
1173:
757:
234:
1750:
805:
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? â
714:
307:
1183:
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!).
258:
151:
1143:
attention in perception textbooks. It seems from your comments that you simply have a different POV than I do. The article as it stands is fairly NPOV.
1456:
1892:
1845:
1529:
969:
Fujita, K. (2001). Perceptual completion in rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta) and pigeons (Columba livia). Perception & Psychophysics, 63, 115â125.
806:
770:
440:
1746:
1328:
1041:
1577:
1559:
1266:
1036:
668:
605:
1519:
1065:
786:
1539:
1533:
1281:
1241:
1018:
592:
571:
963:
Feldman, J. (2007). Formation of visual "objects" in the early computation of spatial relations. Perception & Psychophysics, 69, 816-27.
752:
608:
549:
by Eysenck and Keane, that although they haven't been explained in terms of their underlying neurological mechanisms, the Gestalt laws have
511:
429:
something about Gestalt theory. I think you should 'try not to make false statements' before you have a basic understanding of the theory.
2024:
1525:
1152:
1121:
723:
436:
141:
1886:
1192:
1955:
1235:
1097:
1431:
1388:
681:
490:
1687:
1271:
814:
748:
article. On the other hand, maybe a web page supporting the statement exists on the web site, but the link references the wrong one. -
480:
1607:
710:
Shouldn't one spell Pragnanz correctly Prägnanz? It is still a German word and has not really become an English word. Any objections?
1994:
295:
246:
1617:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
1442:
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.
966:
Fowlkes, C.C., Martin, D.R., & Malik, J. (2007). Local figure-ground cues are valid for natural images. Journal Of Vision, 7, 2.
2029:
1088:
instead of tagging it (a passive aggressive move if ever there was one) and complaining here! That's how Knowledge works you know!
1820:
1775:
2004:
792:
762:
I am curious why under the Reification header - which is about how the mind 'completes' pictures - there is a "see also" link to
1313:
659:
557:
899:
The second study uses gestalt principles to investigate the theoretical concept of intuition from a neuroscientific approach:
1211:
117:
1177:
2019:
1227:
1198:
1028:
778:
637:
345:
How do you add illustrations to this article? This article needs illustrations--crucial to teaching about Gestalt. Thanks!
696:
671:
448:
651:
532:
2/6/2006 Law of Simplicity is a combination of various laws, so it is not missing unless you want to go into detail. -a.
401:
355:
409:
363:
1832:
1767:
503:
387:
379:
334:
326:
1492:
1407:
1356:
1076:
the Gestalt principles gives the reader the feeling that they are learning something when in fact such principles are
1113:
1599:
924:
Here is an alternative point of view about gestalt psychology published by experts in a respected academic journal:
717:
1805:
1707:
1305:
1286:
1169:
877:
The claim that gestalt principles are no longer useful and should be thrown into the dustbins of history is a POV.
108:
69:
1734:
1546:
coined the phrase in the â20s. On top of all this, the misquote âthe whole is greater...â seems actually to be of
527:
1989:
1919:
1582:
1336:
415:
1800:
1638:
to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
467:
1856:
1682:
1162:
797:
The article uses the image of a dog to demonstrate the idea of emergence, however this isn't demonstrating
535:
44:
1840:
1478:
457:
444:
1975:
1657:
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with
1598:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit
1248:
745:
713:
Please fix this page. I've tried fixing it but I don't have time to fine tune my mistakes. -Bhargav_mr
1503:. I am not a psychologist, and have never studied Gestalt, but am a diligent stickler for citations.
1024:
psychology that is referenced as much as Gestalt is must surely have made some positive contribution.
1791:
for an example. I am not clear on the intellectual property rights status of that image. Thanks! --
1608:
https://web.archive.org/web/20120222044129/http://ontology.buffalo.edu/smith/book/FoGT/Contents.htm
1484:
My concern is now that people are using Knowledge as a source of information, and are copying this
1341:
1263:
782:
819:
116:
on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
1902:
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between
1692:
1673:
1278:
274:
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between
225:
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between
1642:
before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template
588:
Anyway, I agree a reference is needed to back this statement up. I'll put in a "fact" template.
1816:
1712:
1658:
198:
1564:==Edit: It was I who saw âErnest Mayrâ, my apologies. My mother actually found a reference to
205:
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
1939:
1860:
1740:"the whole is something else than the sum of its parts" is a quote from Aristotle, not Koffka
1645:
1255:
approach gestalt would propose... but it seems so far that nobody knows what Wundt believed.
1139:
credited" conspiracy-theory nonsense. Far from it. In my opinion the Gestalt school receives
1117:
1107:
notably given to Gestalt. And unfortunately, that probably narrows the options down terribly.
986:
Kanizsa, G. (1979). Organization in vision: Essays on Gestalt perception. New York: Praeger.
763:
340:
313:
50:
911:
The claim that gestalt principles should be replaced by computational neurscience is a POV.
1665:
1611:
1573:
1555:
1309:
1223:
1207:
810:
647:
553:
been disproven and are still considered valid for description and prediction of behaviour.
499:
432:
397:
375:
351:
322:
287:
1542:. Iâve done some rather basic online searching & found 1 uncited source claiming that
852:
Gestalt principles continue to be used in psychological research. Here are four examples:
801:
but rather the lack of it. The paragraph in the article explicitly states that the dog is
8:
1927:
1796:
1524:
Kurt Koffka was German. Could the difference be explained by a variation in translation?
1424:
1381:
1332:
1259:
1188:
1148:
1093:
1061:
517:
206:
21:
1394:
The concept of "acquiring and maintaining stable percepts in an unstable world" is very
1971:
1882:
1624:, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by
1591:
1515:
1403:
1352:
1318:
692:
589:
554:
303:
254:
1664:
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with
1951:
1812:
1781:
737:
100:
1851:
1730:
1703:
1493:
http://www.intropsych.com/ch04_senses/whole_is_other_than_the_sum_of_the_parts.html
702:
185:
1961:
1595:
1569:
1551:
749:
1792:
1788:
1718:
1543:
1415:
1372:
1184:
1144:
1089:
1057:
767:
678:
634:
568:
524:
464:
1630:. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
1298:
1288:
1005:
Sharps, M.J., Wertheimer, M. (2000). Review of General Psychology, 4, 315-336.
995:
Piaget, J. (1952). The origins of intelligence in children. New York: Norton.
1983:
1967:
1878:
1825:
1565:
1511:
1399:
1348:
932:
The POV policy of Knowledge entitles this view to expression in the article.
688:
487:
299:
250:
238:
846:
The claim that gestalt principles are not empirically disprovable is a POV.
1947:
1935:
1915:
1395:
1966:
to both then and now mathematics is the foundation of the study of ultra.
893:
Gestalt properties, including similarity, good continuation, and convexity
472:
1931:
1923:
1726:
1699:
1631:
707:
I'm just curious how anyone would relate Gestalt Psychology to ministry.
567:
vision. Not explanations, or disprovable theories. Bin them and move on.
477:
It's not there yet, but I think this one has featured article potential.
744:
neuroscience is concerned with. If so, perhaps the link belongs in the
1722:
1479:
http://coevolving.com/blogs/index.php/archive/synergy-parts-wholes/#two
193:
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
113:
1466:
the sum of the parts" statement, and I've been unable to run it down.
1547:
1469:
I have done some research, and can verify a version of "the whole is
1077:
798:
1898:
270:
221:
84:
63:
1725:
applied Gestalt principles to social and developmental psychology.
346:
1721:
is normally considered the founder of Gestalt psychology, and how
1495:, that article cites the Heider 1977 article, which clearly reads
1398:
and not readily understandable. If used, it should be fully cited.
989:
Kohler, W. (1929). Gestalt psychology. New York: Horace Liveright.
983:
Hebb, D. O. (1949). The organization of behavior. New York: Wiley.
838:
If you want a more sophisticated example, here's an actual study:
736:
The current location of the supporting citation is this web page:
1477:
the sum of its parts" from Koffka 1935. I've written this up at
2010:
Knowledge level-4 vital articles in Society and social sciences
1081:
1602:
for additional information. I made the following changes:
1473:
the sum of its parts" from Heider 1977, and "the whole is
1414:
I have left Erindal a message, I hope s/he'll read this.
1612:
http://ontology.buffalo.edu/smith/book/FoGT/Contents.htm
2000:
Knowledge vital articles in Society and social sciences
1863:
during the 2012 Q1 term. Further details are available
2035:
Knowledge Ambassador Program student projects, 2012 Q1
1438:
What is the purpose of the gestalt and design section?
2015:
B-Class vital articles in Society and social sciences
728:
The following statement is made in the introduction:
677:
I'm happy with your re-wording. Its very diplomatic!
265:
Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
216:
Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
831:Gestalt principles are experimentally disprovable.
112:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
90:
1634:using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
738:http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~smgxscd/ContourResearch.html
1134:Thanks for weighing in on an argument I had over
1981:
523:be able to interpret the picture any other way.
197:] The anchor (#The mind-body problem) has been
1893:Wiki Education assignment: Psychology Capstone
1846:Knowledge Ambassador Program course assignment
1717:This article could more clearly spell out how
1620:This message was posted before February 2018.
1789:http://optical-illusions.wikia.com/Emergence
1363:Agree! Maybe we should just change the word
1491:If the original source is the 2003 page at
1590:I have just modified one external link on
1071:By all means, Gestalt is important in the
296:Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment
247:Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment
1859:at Western University supported by the
1871:The above message was substituted from
294:Above undated message substituted from
245:Above undated message substituted from
19:
1982:
1242:opposed to structuralism & Wundt?
1444:2001:630:212:238:7254:D2FF:FEC5:1EF6
758:Reference to "Reification (fallacy)"
724:Supporting citation does not support
167:
106:This article is within the scope of
15:
2025:High-importance psychology articles
1855:This article was the subject of an
49:It is of interest to the following
13:
1907:
1903:
1272:Page improvement templates removed
481:Prägnanz? - is there a missing law
279:
275:
230:
226:
14:
2046:
1594:. Please take a moment to review
1995:Knowledge level-4 vital articles
1910:. Further details are available
1897:
1850:
1488:phrase, when it's unverified.
1457:Koffka on "the sum of the parts"
282:. Further details are available
269:
233:. Further details are available
220:
171:
126:Knowledge:WikiProject Psychology
93:
83:
62:
29:
20:
2030:WikiProject Psychology articles
793:Emergence demonstration example
687:Bin your happiness and move on.
545:I remember reading, I think in
146:This article has been rated as
129:Template:WikiProject Psychology
2005:B-Class level-4 vital articles
1337:02:26, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
1042:Agreed #2 with "POV Criticism"
880:Is there a 'Point 3' missing?
815:16:05, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
463:tell what was in the picture.
1:
1946:â Assignment last updated by
1841:08:33, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
1776:08:48, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
1408:01:18, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
1389:15:10, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
1357:03:18, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
1314:02:35, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
1236:20:30, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
1037:00:37, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
905:Waterloo Gestalt Closure Task
697:16:29, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
660:03:16, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
528:12:19, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
491:14:26, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
449:03:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
364:20:29, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
335:15:14, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
120:and see a list of open tasks.
1976:18:30, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
1861:Knowledge Ambassador Program
1801:21:31, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
1688:07:20, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
1578:07:14, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
1560:06:49, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
1452:10:44, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
1432:17:27, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
1199:History Section Badly Needed
1049:POV tag in Criticism section
820:POV tag in Criticism section
718:13:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
308:22:21, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
259:21:47, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
7:
2020:B-Class psychology articles
1887:15:55, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
1534:17:51, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
1520:23:41, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
1218:) 17:31, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
1098:18:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
1066:07:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
1019:Agreed with "POV Criticism"
410:17:04, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
10:
2051:
1651:(last update: 5 June 2024)
1587:Hello fellow Wikipedians,
1193:18:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
1178:02:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
746:Computational Neuroscience
152:project's importance scale
1735:17:32, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
1708:17:26, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
1282:10:11, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
1249:structuralism(psychology)
1153:13:08, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
1122:03:18, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
787:22:10, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
753:19:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
633:just rendered redundant)
512:08:48, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
388:08:22, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
145:
78:
57:
1956:20:11, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
1821:21:53, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
1806:current templates status
1506:If someone can find the
1267:00:01, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
771:21:25, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
682:13:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
672:13:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
638:22:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
609:17:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
593:16:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
572:14:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
558:10:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
1755:09:18, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
1583:External links modified
468:00:44, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
416:Comment by someone else
1990:B-Class vital articles
1857:educational assignment
930:
909:
897:
875:
844:
734:
199:deleted by other users
109:WikiProject Psychology
1914:. Student editor(s):
1086:do something about it
926:
901:
889:
854:
840:
764:Reification (fallacy)
730:
286:. Student editor(s):
237:. Student editor(s):
36:level-4 vital article
1632:regular verification
547:Cognitive Psychology
536:Gestalt Discredited?
319:double-check that?
1922:). Peer reviewers:
1622:After February 2018
1475:something else than
720:Thanks -Bhargav_mr
132:psychology articles
1912:on the course page
1874:{{WAP assignment}}
1865:on the course page
1676:InternetArchiveBot
1627:InternetArchiveBot
1592:Gestalt psychology
284:on the course page
235:on the course page
45:content assessment
1652:
1226:comment added by
1210:comment added by
662:
650:comment added by
502:comment added by
451:
435:comment added by
400:comment added by
378:comment added by
354:comment added by
337:
325:comment added by
227:16 September 2019
213:
212:
188:in most browsers.
166:
165:
162:
161:
158:
157:
101:Psychology portal
2042:
1958:
1940:Lightbluejay2001
1920:article contribs
1909:
1905:
1901:
1889:
1876:
1875:
1854:
1686:
1677:
1650:
1649:
1628:
1429:
1428:
1422:
1421:
1386:
1385:
1379:
1378:
1342:Mixed adjectives
1238:
1219:
777:physically real.
645:
514:
473:Featured article
430:
412:
390:
320:
310:
281:
277:
273:
261:
232:
231:18 December 2019
228:
224:
207:Reporting errors
175:
174:
168:
134:
133:
130:
127:
124:
103:
98:
97:
96:
87:
80:
79:
74:
66:
59:
58:
42:
33:
32:
25:
24:
16:
2050:
2049:
2045:
2044:
2043:
2041:
2040:
2039:
1980:
1979:
1964:
1945:
1895:
1873:
1872:
1870:
1848:
1828:
1808:
1784:
1742:
1715:
1695:
1693:Original Phrase
1680:
1675:
1643:
1636:have permission
1626:
1600:this simple FaQ
1585:
1459:
1440:
1426:
1425:
1417:
1416:
1383:
1382:
1374:
1373:
1344:
1321:
1295:
1274:
1244:
1221:
1212:144.126.165.218
1205:
1201:
1165:
1044:
1021:
822:
795:
760:
726:
705:
538:
520:
497:
483:
475:
460:
418:
395:
391:
373:
343:
316:
293:
288:Mariana Altauil
267:
244:
218:
209:
191:
190:
189:
172:
148:High-importance
131:
128:
125:
122:
121:
99:
94:
92:
73:Highâimportance
72:
43:on Knowledge's
40:
30:
12:
11:
5:
2048:
2038:
2037:
2032:
2027:
2022:
2017:
2012:
2007:
2002:
1997:
1992:
1963:
1960:
1928:Serenity Siren
1908:11 August 2023
1894:
1891:
1847:
1844:
1827:
1824:
1807:
1804:
1783:
1780:
1779:
1778:
1763:
1741:
1738:
1719:Max Wertheimer
1714:
1713:Max Wertheimer
1711:
1694:
1691:
1670:
1669:
1662:
1615:
1614:
1606:Added archive
1584:
1581:
1544:Max Wertheimer
1497:different from
1471:different from
1458:
1455:
1439:
1436:
1435:
1434:
1392:
1391:
1343:
1340:
1320:
1317:
1294:
1285:
1273:
1270:
1243:
1240:
1228:76.169.162.174
1200:
1197:
1196:
1195:
1164:
1161:
1160:
1159:
1158:
1157:
1156:
1155:
1127:
1126:
1125:
1124:
1112:
1108:
1101:
1100:
1043:
1040:
1029:207.81.123.251
1020:
1017:
1016:
1015:
1012:
1009:
1006:
1003:
1000:
996:
993:
990:
987:
984:
981:
978:
974:
970:
967:
964:
961:
821:
818:
794:
791:
790:
789:
779:192.139.122.42
759:
756:
725:
722:
715:167.206.174.75
704:
701:
685:
684:
665:
641:
640:
614:
612:
611:
600:
599:
598:
597:
596:
595:
586:
577:
576:
575:
574:
561:
560:
537:
534:
519:
516:
482:
479:
474:
471:
459:
456:
454:
426:Gestalt theory
424:
417:
414:
372:
368:
342:
339:
315:
312:
266:
263:
217:
214:
211:
210:
204:
203:
202:
186:case-sensitive
180:
179:
178:
176:
164:
163:
160:
159:
156:
155:
144:
138:
137:
135:
118:the discussion
105:
104:
88:
76:
75:
67:
55:
54:
48:
26:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2047:
2036:
2033:
2031:
2028:
2026:
2023:
2021:
2018:
2016:
2013:
2011:
2008:
2006:
2003:
2001:
1998:
1996:
1993:
1991:
1988:
1987:
1985:
1978:
1977:
1973:
1969:
1959:
1957:
1953:
1949:
1943:
1941:
1937:
1933:
1929:
1925:
1921:
1917:
1913:
1900:
1890:
1888:
1884:
1880:
1868:
1866:
1862:
1858:
1853:
1843:
1842:
1838:
1834:
1823:
1822:
1818:
1814:
1803:
1802:
1798:
1794:
1790:
1777:
1773:
1769:
1764:
1760:
1759:
1758:
1756:
1752:
1748:
1737:
1736:
1732:
1728:
1724:
1720:
1710:
1709:
1705:
1701:
1690:
1689:
1684:
1679:
1678:
1667:
1663:
1660:
1656:
1655:
1654:
1647:
1641:
1637:
1633:
1629:
1623:
1618:
1613:
1609:
1605:
1604:
1603:
1601:
1597:
1593:
1588:
1580:
1579:
1575:
1571:
1567:
1566:Immanuel Kant
1562:
1561:
1557:
1553:
1549:
1545:
1541:
1536:
1535:
1531:
1527:
1522:
1521:
1517:
1513:
1509:
1504:
1502:
1498:
1494:
1489:
1487:
1482:
1480:
1476:
1472:
1467:
1465:
1454:
1453:
1449:
1445:
1433:
1430:
1423:
1420:
1413:
1412:
1411:
1409:
1405:
1401:
1397:
1390:
1387:
1380:
1377:
1370:
1366:
1362:
1361:
1360:
1358:
1354:
1350:
1339:
1338:
1334:
1330:
1325:
1316:
1315:
1311:
1307:
1303:
1302:
1293:
1292:
1284:
1283:
1280:
1279:Donald Albury
1269:
1268:
1265:
1261:
1256:
1252:
1250:
1239:
1237:
1233:
1229:
1225:
1217:
1213:
1209:
1194:
1190:
1186:
1182:
1181:
1180:
1179:
1175:
1171:
1154:
1150:
1146:
1142:
1137:
1133:
1132:
1131:
1130:
1129:
1128:
1123:
1119:
1115:
1109:
1105:
1104:
1103:
1102:
1099:
1095:
1091:
1087:
1083:
1079:
1074:
1070:
1069:
1068:
1067:
1063:
1059:
1053:
1050:
1039:
1038:
1034:
1030:
1025:
1013:
1010:
1007:
1004:
1001:
997:
994:
991:
988:
985:
982:
979:
975:
971:
968:
965:
962:
958:
957:
956:
955:
951:
947:
943:
939:
937:
933:
929:
925:
923:
919:
916:
912:
908:
906:
900:
896:
894:
888:
885:
881:
878:
874:
871:
869:
866:
864:
862:
859:
857:
853:
851:
847:
843:
839:
836:
832:
830:
826:
817:
816:
812:
808:
804:
800:
788:
784:
780:
775:
774:
773:
772:
769:
765:
755:
754:
751:
747:
741:
739:
733:
729:
721:
719:
716:
711:
708:
700:
698:
694:
690:
683:
680:
676:
675:
674:
673:
670:
663:
661:
657:
653:
652:68.54.234.132
649:
639:
636:
632:
627:
623:
622:
621:
617:
610:
607:
602:
601:
594:
591:
590:Forlornturtle
587:
583:
582:
581:
580:
579:
578:
573:
570:
565:
564:
563:
562:
559:
556:
555:Forlornturtle
552:
548:
544:
543:
542:
533:
530:
529:
526:
515:
513:
509:
505:
501:
493:
492:
489:
478:
470:
469:
466:
455:
452:
450:
446:
442:
438:
434:
427:
422:
413:
411:
407:
403:
402:76.124.28.153
399:
389:
385:
381:
377:
371:
366:
365:
361:
357:
356:98.215.123.75
353:
348:
341:Contributions
338:
336:
332:
328:
324:
314:intro section
311:
309:
305:
301:
297:
291:
289:
285:
280:5 August 2019
272:
262:
260:
256:
252:
248:
242:
240:
236:
223:
208:
200:
196:
195:
194:
187:
183:
177:
170:
169:
153:
149:
143:
140:
139:
136:
119:
115:
111:
110:
102:
91:
89:
86:
82:
81:
77:
71:
68:
65:
61:
60:
56:
52:
46:
38:
37:
27:
23:
18:
17:
1965:
1962:Disc Gestalt
1944:
1896:
1869:
1849:
1833:96.41.90.174
1829:
1813:Megaman en m
1809:
1785:
1768:96.41.90.174
1743:
1716:
1696:
1674:
1671:
1646:source check
1625:
1619:
1616:
1589:
1586:
1563:
1537:
1523:
1507:
1505:
1500:
1499:rather than
1496:
1490:
1485:
1483:
1474:
1470:
1468:
1463:
1460:
1441:
1418:
1393:
1375:
1368:
1364:
1345:
1326:
1322:
1300:
1296:
1290:
1275:
1257:
1253:
1247:Titchener's
1245:
1222:â Preceding
1202:
1166:
1140:
1136:2 years ago.
1135:
1085:
1078:tautological
1072:
1054:
1048:
1045:
1026:
1022:
953:
952:
948:
944:
940:
935:
934:
931:
927:
921:
920:
914:
913:
910:
904:
902:
898:
892:
890:
883:
882:
879:
876:
872:
870:
867:
865:
863:
860:
858:
855:
849:
848:
845:
841:
837:
833:
828:
827:
823:
802:
796:
761:
742:
735:
731:
727:
712:
709:
706:
686:
664:
642:
630:
625:
618:
613:
550:
546:
539:
531:
521:
504:85.5.193.122
494:
484:
476:
461:
453:
425:
423:
419:
392:
380:85.5.193.122
367:
344:
327:2.107.243.22
321:â Preceding
317:
292:
268:
243:
219:
192:
184:Anchors are
181:
147:
107:
51:WikiProjects
34:
1811:template.--
1540:Ernest Mayr
1299:German for
1289:German for
1206:âPreceding
1114:24.5.21.150
667:Psychology.
646:âPreceding
631:discredited
518:Helpful tip
498:âPreceding
431:âPreceding
396:âPreceding
374:âPreceding
276:15 May 2019
1984:Categories
1904:8 May 2023
1826:thank you!
1723:Kurt Lewin
1683:Report bug
1570:Dfcorrea00
1552:Dfcorrea00
1508:other than
1501:other than
1486:other than
1464:other than
1319:Evaluation
1306:99.19.43.8
1170:24.7.12.86
1163:"doobies"?
954:references
807:metaprimer
123:Psychology
114:Psychology
70:Psychology
1793:Lbeaumont
1782:Dog image
1747:Stefanmrv
1666:this tool
1659:this tool
1548:Aristotle
1419:Lova Falk
1410:Lestrade
1376:Lova Falk
1359:Lestrade
1329:Spearmanm
1301:pithiness
1291:pithiness
1185:Famousdog
1145:Famousdog
1090:Famousdog
1058:Wolfworks
799:emergence
768:Frostlion
699:Lestrade
679:Famousdog
635:Famousdog
624:Firstly,
569:Famousdog
525:BrownBean
39:is rated
1968:HexClock
1879:PrimeBOT
1672:Cheers.â
1512:Daviding
1400:Lestrade
1369:unstable
1349:Lestrade
1347:unclear.
1224:unsigned
1208:unsigned
1141:too much
977:387â398.
936:Summary:
922:Point 6:
915:Point 5:
884:Point 4:
850:Point 2:
829:Point 1:
703:Stuff...
689:Lestrade
669:Gosolowe
648:unsigned
606:Gosolowe
500:unsigned
488:HappyDog
445:contribs
433:unsigned
398:unsigned
376:unsigned
352:unsigned
323:unsigned
300:PrimeBOT
251:PrimeBOT
239:Westonfr
1948:Rahneli
1936:Gkoper9
1916:Madnel4
1596:my edit
1396:obscure
1082:truisms
1073:history
458:the dog
201:before.
150:on the
41:B-class
1932:Sdmlas
1924:Spenn7
1727:Vorbee
1700:Vorbee
1260:Kiyarr
1220:Pppp
973:Press.
47:scale.
1885:) on
1526:WoutR
1367:into
1365:noisy
1297:Add (
437:Iwylu
28:This
1972:talk
1952:talk
1906:and
1883:talk
1837:talk
1817:talk
1797:talk
1772:talk
1751:talk
1731:talk
1704:talk
1574:talk
1556:talk
1530:talk
1516:talk
1448:talk
1427:talk
1404:talk
1384:talk
1353:talk
1333:talk
1310:talk
1287:Add
1264:talk
1262:lls-
1251:."
1232:talk
1216:talk
1189:talk
1174:talk
1149:talk
1118:talk
1094:talk
1062:talk
1033:talk
811:talk
783:talk
693:talk
656:talk
508:talk
465:capi
441:talk
406:talk
384:talk
360:talk
331:talk
304:talk
278:and
255:talk
229:and
182:Tip:
142:High
1877:by
1867:.
1640:RfC
1610:to
1304:)
1080:or
803:not
750:Mak
626:how
551:not
347:Dpr
298:by
249:by
1986::
1974:)
1954:)
1942:.
1938:,
1934:,
1930:,
1926:,
1839:)
1819:)
1799:)
1774:)
1757:`
1753:)
1733:)
1706:)
1653:.
1648:}}
1644:{{
1576:)
1558:)
1532:)
1518:)
1481:.
1450:)
1406:)
1371:?
1355:)
1335:)
1327:--
1312:)
1234:)
1191:)
1176:)
1151:)
1120:)
1096:)
1064:)
1035:)
1027:--
813:)
785:)
740:.
695:)
658:)
510:)
486:--
447:)
443:â˘
408:)
386:)
362:)
333:)
306:)
290:.
257:)
241:.
1970:(
1950:(
1918:(
1881:(
1835:(
1815:(
1795:(
1770:(
1749:(
1729:(
1702:(
1685:)
1681:(
1668:.
1661:.
1572:(
1554:(
1528:(
1514:(
1446:(
1402:(
1351:(
1331:(
1308:(
1230:(
1214:(
1187:(
1172:(
1147:(
1116:(
1092:(
1060:(
1031:(
999:.
809:(
781:(
691:(
654:(
506:(
439:(
404:(
382:(
358:(
329:(
302:(
253:(
154:.
53::
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
