Talk:Ishin-denshin

uncontextualized generic claims/point-of-view

I'm moving here some poorly-sourced claims and some well-sourced unfocused/uncontextualized content inserted (in good-faith) by an anonymous editor [1]:

Ishin-denshin is present in every society on Earth in the way people look at each other and go through a variety of nonverbal gestures peculiar to their nationality, ethnicity or shared cultural background. Learned non-verbal cues require a community or culture for their reinforcement; table manners are not innate capabilities upon birth. Human children’s skills of shared intentionality develop gradually during the first 14 months of life as two ontogenetic pathways intertwine, so the developmental outcome is children’s ability to construct dialogic cognitive representations, which enable them to participate in human collective cognition.

Imo, this sort of content might be considered (with appropriate editorial focus/contextualization) in an expanded version of the page. At present, however, the content is problematically presented.

I have also moved an inappropriately sourced claim that ishin-denshin "comes from a Chinese proverb".86.164.164.29 (talk) 11:13, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I have further removed the following claim [2]:

Research supports the view that ishin-denshin is a mechanism for norm regulation that does not rely on explicit information exchange or costly reinforcement, but rather on the sensitivity of group members to social cues in their environment which can signal a threat to one’s inclusionary status in the group and (as in Japan) motivate people to shift their attitudes to be in line with group social norms.

Although apparently pertinent, this fails WP:OR, given that neither the source provided nor the study referenced in that source regards ishin-denshin as such. 86.164.164.29 (talk) 19:16, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

This page has a feeble citation base. One editor removed citations from the Journal of Behavioral and brain sciences and the journal Social Psychology Quarterly because the "...edit broadly seems to be supporting a particular point-of-view...perhaps attributing undue weight to certain aspects of the cited sources." However, the two citations from the work of Boyé Lafayette De Mente, the author of such works as:

-WHY THE JAPANESE ARE A SUPERIOR PEOPLE! Phoenix Books, 2009, ISBN 0-914778-55-2 -MISTRESS-KEEPING IN JAPAN! - The Pitfalls & the Pleasures, Phoenix Books, 2009, ISBN 0-914778-72-2 -WHY ORIENTAL GIRLS ATTRACT WESTERN MEN! - The Erotic Side of the Orient!, Phoenix Books, 2009, ISBN 0-914778-85-4

apparently deserve more respect than the two internationally recognized peer-reviewed journals. This page appears to be another ad nauseam description of the Japanese as a unique people.61.21.226.3 (talk) 01:49, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out the non-reliable sourcing – now removed, per WP:RS. The academic journals could certainly be potential sources if they actually referred specifically to ishin-denshin, but as far as I can see they don't even mention it. 86.164.164.29 (talk) 21:06, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Universality of ishin-denshin?

I think the set of changes contained in this edit require some discussion/consensus. As I've also written on the anonymous IP contributor's talk page (here), the edit broadly seems to be supporting a particular point-of-view (perhaps attributing undue weight to certain aspects of the cited sources?). To my eyes at least, the changes made broadly seem to emphasize the fact that silent, non-verbal communication is a universal phenomenon in order to claim that the cultural phenomenon that ishin-denshin denotes must be seen as universal. For example, I don't think it's either appropriate editorial weighting or especially helpful to readers to start a page regarding a particular cultural perception by highlighting that "interpersonal communication through unspoken mutual understanding" is a "universal human concept" [my emphasis]. But that's not to say that I don't think that well-sourced content on the way ishin-denshin has been interpreted in disciplines such as communication theory, anthropology and psychology might not have a place in an appropriately expanded version of the page. 86.164.164.29 (talk) 13:24, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Trimmed sources

I've trimmed [3] three potentially pertinent sources that were added into the article in a somewhat sketchy way, and am moving them here:

• Takeo Doi,The Anatomy of Self,1985,page138(...telepathic,pre-linguistic,...)
• John W.Dower,War without Mercy,1986,page107(...nondiscursive communication...)
• Karel van Wolferen,The Enigma of Japanese Power,1989,page327(...supra-conversational...)

86.189.140.13 (talk) 19:48, 7 October 2019 (UTC)