This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
many lines of this article are simply copied whole (without quotation marks) from the Tolman 1948 article referenced above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 04:47, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
After three years of open discussion on this merger, there is still no consensus to merge. I would suggest that editors focus on improving both articles Cognitive map and Mental map, as they are both quite substantial and a merger would be complicated. WTF? (talk) 16:27, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
I could not find a source that suggests that there's a distinction between a mental map and a cognitive map. The former is used a bit more often by geographers, while the latter is used more often by psychologists, but that's it. On the other hand, I found several sources claiming that both terms stand for the same (some examples: here, here, here, and here). --Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 15:30, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Whatever there is in Mental map that is not yet present here, move it and then redirect here. No need for a merger discussion for these relatively short articles, I would say, be bold. --Crusio (talk) 15:56, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Agreed, I support the merger or whatever other step you care to take (like a redirect) to eliminate this duplication of articles. Glenfarclas(talk) 03:34, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Disagree: Mental map refers to a practice done by urban theorists by having city dwellers draw a map, from memory, of their city or the place they live. This allows the theorist to get a sense of which parts of the city or dwelling are more substantial or imaginable. This, in turn, lends itself to a decisive idea of how well urban planning has been conducted. More imaginability= good planning...Cognitive mapping is not Mental Mapping. That is that 220.127.116.11 (talk) 06:58, 4 March 2010 (UTC)Thanks, Nick
Comment: You're only referring to (a part of) the practical environment in which mental mapping is used, and the interpretations that may be drawn from it in that specific context, but you're not explaining in what way they're inherently different - in fact, you're not referring to cognitive maps at all. In the meantime, I've also hit upon the article on mental maps in the International Encyclopedia of Human Geography, which states that a cognitive map is a spatial representation of the outside world that is kept within the mind, until an actual manifestation (usually, a drawing) of this perceived knowledge is generated, a mental map. Interpreted that way, cognitive mapping is the implicit, mental mapping the explicit part of the same process, and should be covered in the same article (while it can be argued that, in most cases, a cognitive map exists independently of a mental map, an article covering just cognitive maps would remain limited to theoretical considerations - which would be entirely possible, but imo not useful within Wikipedia's broad scope). --Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 15:52, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
... and btw, there are hints that our minds do not record exact cognitive maps of our surroundings. (sorry for providing only a German-language source) --Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 16:23, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
I incorporated some of the above comments into the page. Would be useful if someone cited them. Wxidea (talk) 16:16, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
This article is quite turstworthy, quite biased, not complete, quite well-written,and quite accurate. Provide more information about the discovery of the term such as when where and why it was discovered. Elaborate on the neurological characteristics relating to the functioning of the phenomenon. It needs more information about potential uses for the phenomenon that relate to the real world and its influences to other specific interests within the study of psychology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danhurlburt (talk • contribs) 05:35, 20 February 2012 (UTC) This article would be better if there were some real life implications as to what cognitive map is. Also, what studies have been done to prove cognitive mapping is real, and shows empirically where it comes from. josh everett 00:14, 12 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshev24 (talk • contribs)
The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Taking a look at the paper by Bennett, his critique is rather unsubstantiated (as he mainly discusses different definitions of that term) and his conclusions a bit odd, as he concludes that (1) non-human animals do have cognitive maps in the sense of representations of space, that (2) explanations with explicit reference to this term have not been excluded thus (3) the term should not be used any longer. (All in his conclusion on p. 223, http://jeb.biologists.org/content/199/1/219.full.pdf)