Talk:Subjective constancy

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Subjective constancy article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Psychology Mid‑importance

	Psychology portal 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.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Neuroscience Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Neuroscience, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Neuroscience 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.NeuroscienceWikipedia:WikiProject NeuroscienceTemplate:WikiProject Neuroscienceneuroscience articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Disambig?

This isn't a disambiguation page... 72.229.10.47 (talk) 04:15, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removed

Shape constancy is a type of perceptual constancy. When a man is observing an object that he is familiar with, although he observes it at an angle which makes the shape of the object on the retina change, he will still view the object as its original shape which means the perception of shape is relatively stable.
For example, wherever a man looks at one book will view that as a rectangle but not a parallelogram.

I removed the text above as it doesn't make sense. Hyacinth (talk) 02:58, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Distance Constancy

I thought the moon looked larger when near the horizon because of a magnifying effect due to the greater atmospheric lense there? Wouldn't the moon look smaller closer to a large object such as the earth? This isn't adding up.. Jimbobbowap —Preceding undated comment added 10:03, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is not correct. You can create the same illusion with a fake/artificial horizon, and the effect disappears if there is a valley (and therefore no trees/ground/buildings between you and the moon). You can create the same effect viewing fake moons out of a window of a space station (where there is no atmosphere): this has been done, and it works. It is a perceptual effect caused by the presence of things being visible between you and the moon, causing a change in perception of distance. This article is wrong anyway, because this is not size constancy: the perceived size of the moon changes. It is an exception to size constancy. ParticipantObserver (talk) 18:14, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]