Talk:Spatial–temporal reasoning

Article quality class

I've changed the article quality class to Start. It was previously marked as B which was clearly unwarranted - placing the article as it did among the best written 5% of philosophy project articles. Hopefully the Start classification will draw in some editors willing to take on the role of writing some far less technical prose and structuring it in a way that gives the lay reader at least some chance of understanding. Jack of Many (talk) 00:32, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Does not provide essential information

This article contains no basic information on what spatial-temporal reasoning is. The first sentence tells us it is a field within computer science, and then it launches right into minutiae, without actually mentioning what it IS. The introduction needs at least one paragraph defining what the subject is.

As it stands, this article reads as a brain dump, written under the assumption that the reader is already an expert in the subject. Also, formatting would help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.200.184.18 (talk) 13:31, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Chess and spatial ability

Surprisingly, spatial ability does not appear to be any more important in chess than other intellectual abilities. A cognitive ability (aside from general intelligence) important to chess is a good memory for meaningful configurations. See, e.g., Miles D. Storfer's Intelligence and Giftedness: Contributions of an Early Environment. Bulldog123 13:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Chess is primarily verbal-sequential. Spatial ability is more important in Go (game). East Asians that are good at Go have high spatial intelligence.

Merge proposal with Visual thinking

• Oppose - Spatial-temporal reasoning is about orientation and way-finding in space and space-time, of both humans and robots. Visual thinking is about a completely different subject: namely about a specific way how humans can think, e.g. when inventing new scientific ideas. --Tillmo 10:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose- Temporal reasoning has nothing to do with spatial relationships. For example if an AI was going to understand that John ate dinner, read the newpaper, and then went to bed. He might use a form of Allen's Interval Algebra to understand that a human doesn't go to bed, and then eat his dinner. That there is a sequence to things. If a robot was going to set up your computer desk and computer... the robot would have to understand that he first has to build the desk, before putting the computer on the table top... I can list more but I'm not going too.--Sparkygravity (talk) 12:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Strongly biased

This article is advertising in disguised for a given provider of so called learning solution with little to none scientific basis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.106.26.156 (talk) 13:08, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Indeed! I find the second paragraph disgustingly biased. It seems this article might have been ripped directly from another website or is just someone's opinion. -HannesJvV- (talk) 14:40, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I suppose that you mean the "Spatial-temporal reasoning in psychology" section? --Tillmo (talk) 11:37, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes. This article seems to heavily depend on a particular website with no scientific merit, laying out a debunked theory as fact to lay people. I'm going to remove all the sentences that rely on that website (it is in no way a reliable source), and all unsourced statements about people being 'kinaesthetic learners' or 'visual learners'. Good God, have you ever tried to discuss this with a teacher who has little scientific ability, but has been convinced by websites like this? Oh, for some evidence-based practice. 86.146.195.12 (talk) 21:51, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Visual and... (ambiguity)

This sentence: "Spatial-temporal reasoning can have as much or more to do with one of the other 5 main modes of thought: the logical (mathematical/systems) style of thought" is ambiguous.

I do not know if it is saying any one of the other 5 main modes of thought, or one of them in particular (logical).

If the latter, I propose a rewording thusly or similar:

Spatial-temporal reasoning can have as much or more to do with the logical (mathematical/systems) style of thought as it can with the visual style of thought. (There are six main _modes of thought_.)

Sorry, this is my very first contribution ever, and I'm basically clueless! If I felt 100% confident on the correct interpretation of the sentence, I would save you all the trouble :)

I anticipate "_modes of thought_" could point to a new page by that title, which would be an index of sorts for the various modes of thought. Again, well beyond my skillset! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.4.184.37 (talk) 15:58, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Intelligence Citations Bibliography for Articles Related to IQ Testing

You may find it helpful while reading or editing articles to look at a bibliography of Intelligence Citations, posted for the use of all Wikipedians who have occasion to edit articles on human intelligence and related issues. I happen to have circulating access to a huge academic research library at a university with an active research program in those issues (and to another library that is one of the ten largest public library systems in the United States) and have been researching these issues since 1989. You are welcome to use these citations for your own research. You can help other Wikipedians by suggesting new sources through comments on that page. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 14:31, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Redirect proposal

I propose that Spatial-temporal reasoning (in psychology) is redirected to Spatial visualization ability, for two reasons:

• The section is almost empty, there is nothing in those few lines that is not also in Spatial visualization ability:
• Spatial-temporal reasoning is a part of spatial visualization ability; so if somebody would write more on spatial-temporal reasoning, it is better to do it as a part of spatial-temporal reasoning. Lova Falk talk 10:27, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Please comment! Lova Falk talk 12:09, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Nobody opposed so I'll do it. have done it. Lova Falk talk 09:41, 24 October 2012 (UTC)