Talk:Impulsivity

Comments

There seems to be no other page explaining this form of behaviour, and I think this article should be marked as a stub to allow others to add to it, otherwise this article will never develop further.

OK, I will put this to Articles for Deletion.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 15:34, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Expanded

I have expanded the definition of impulsivity to better reflect extant scientific literature Fsanabria (talk) 04:34, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Good work, great project! Lova Falk talk 18:35, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Intertemporal choice

Very interesting section, the one on intertemporal choice! However, I wonder if the article Impulsivity is the correct article for this. Wouldn't the section be better in Decision theory? Lova Falk talk 18:53, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Delay discounting is subsumed within intertermporal choice (impulsivity here is often called "impulsive choice", as opposed to "impulsive action"), and is the central theme of the American Psychological Association book on Impulsivity (see http://www.apa.org/pubs/books/4318058.aspx). Thus, we included it here. Fsanabria (talk) 12:26, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Too many lists

This is a pre-GA comment: please rewrite most if not all bullet point sections into prose, per WP:PROSE. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:33, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Impulsivity/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Piotrus (talk · contribs) 11:38, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   This article is far from beautiful prose. To point out a few problems: 1) The lead starts with numerous quotations, none attributed in text, all discouraged per WP:MOSQUOTE. 2) There are too many lists, discouraged per WP:MOSLIST. 3) Some sections are very short, and have very long headings (ex. "Go/No-go and Stop-signal reaction time test"). It seems reasonable to reduce a number of sections, and merge/expand some of the shortest paras. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:51, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   1) While it is not required, I'd strongly recommend the use of cite templates. No, on second thought I am afraid I'll have to insist; there are so many complex citations here the use of cite templates would speed up the citation review significantly. 2) Some books need page numbers; I've tagged a few. 3) There are many unreferenced claims in the article, I've tagged most, but not all. Considering the complexity of this article, I've serious doubts that end of para cites are enough; I'd like to see all sentences referenced in longer paras that already have 2+ refs. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:51, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
   
   i've done a lot of reformatting of the references (see diff). hopefully, this moves the article in the right direction.  —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 21:38, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   As far as a non-expert like me can tell. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:51, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Could use more images - diagrams, or such - but it is not necessary. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:51, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   This is on hold pending replies to the concerns raised above. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:51, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

   Failed: no activity to address any issues raised for over a week. (Nominator was notified on his/her talk page, still inactive). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:15, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Confusion in section "Go/no-go and Stop-signal reaction time tasks"

The last-but-one sentence of the above-mentioned section seems to me to be incorrect. It reads

If the participant fails to inhibit their 'go' response, the 'stop' signal is moved slightly closer to the original 'go' signal, and if the participant successfully inhibits their 'go' response, the 'stop' signal is moved slightly ahead in time. The SSRT is thus measured as the average 'go' response time minus the average 'stop' signal presentation time (SSD).

Shouldn't it be the opposite, i.e. if the subject fails to inhibit the go-response, the stop signal should be moved away from the go signal to make it easier? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enlightenmentreloaded (talk • contribs) 09:43, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

The five traits that can lead to impulsive actions

This section is very unclear and poorly formatted. Needs fixing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.64.103.226 (talk) 21:54, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Turgid passage in lead

A functional variety of impulsivity has also been suggested, which involves action without much forethought in appropriate situations that can and does result in desirable consequences. "When such actions have positive outcomes, they tend not to be seen as signs of impulsivity, but as indicators of boldness, quickness, spontaneity, courageousness, or unconventionality."

This was just too hard to read in own notes, so I slammed it into the following crib:

A functional variety of impulsivity exists where rash action in appropriate situations results in desirable consequences, characteristic of boldness, quickness, spontaneity, courageousness, or unconventionality.

Maybe not perfect, but a nice change of pacing from the mincing, academic tone. — MaxEnt 02:30, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Debate about impulsivity as a static trait or variable behaviour

Hi, I'd like to add some of the research on this topic- although I'm new to editing so treading cautiously. Any objections or suggestions for where it best fits?--Researchpsyc (talk) 10:15, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Brain training?

Does the brain training talked about in this article the same as brain training and should be linked to it? RJFJR (talk) 16:09, 6 February 2021 (UTC)