Talk:Postcognitive psychology
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Postcognitive psychology article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Untitled[edit]
I don't understand a single word of this article, and I have written extensively about post-cognitivism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.11.232.206 (talk) 23:47, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Huh?[edit]
In addition to being incomprehensible to layperson and specialist alike, the article seems to consist of original research and/or self-promotion.
72.76.8.43 (talk) 04:30, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
All I got out of this article is that "Postcognitive psychology" has no hyphen in it. -- Max Nanasy (talk) 00:55, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
I’m not familiar with the fields of psychology, (post)cognitivism... and hyphenation(?) but would anyone else mind searching for recent mentions or developments relating to this alleged psych subfield?
Not that I’m condoning it, but even original research presented coherently would be better than the current article.
Again, reiterating I know nothing here, but if it turns out this “chain” of three pages; author—book—concept, have served as self promotion all along without being tested for eg notability claims, that’d look silly. Because this reads like absolute nonsense.
If postcognitive psychology, as presented in the article, is actually a thing then please rewrite it in a slightly more layman accessible way.
Many current links are dead or subpar, maybe appropriate to slap a page issue tag? (Not sure how it’s done on mobile, also possible there’s already a tag in place, if so sorry) Ommar365 (talk) 00:52, 17 January 2021 (UTC)