Talk:Haptic communication

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 August 2019 and 18 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Nicooolepuerta.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:08, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Rockbd. Peer reviewers: Henao6.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:04, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Americans?

America is not a country. It should say "U.S. Americans"

"American" is the proper demonym for a United States person. (See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americans) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.16.142.194 (talk) 02:41, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Should this be corrected?

"To 'touch oneself' is a euphemism for masturbation." an euphemism refers nicely to a bad thing, and i don't think that "masturbation" has a bad connotation... so it would be a metaphor, not an euphemism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.19.79.19 (talk) 23:41, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not too sure about this but it all depends on context. You wouldn't go up to a stranger and talk to him/her about masturbation would you? Not anymore than you would talk about how you went to the bathroom this morning. Fallenangei (talk) 02:42, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Metaphor would not be the correct term. A euphemism is "a mild or indirect word or expression substituted for one considered to be too harsh or blunt when referring to something unpleasant or embarrassing" (Oxford Dictionaries). Usually, this simply means a polite or indirect term for something negative, offensive, or taboo. "'Touching oneself' is a euphemism for masturbation" is appropriately used and phrased.

X percents of what did what?

Remland and Jones (1995) studied groups of people communicating and found that in England (8%), France (5%) and the Netherlands (4%) touching was rare compared to their Italian (14%) and Greek (12.5%) sample.

What does these numbers refer to? They're pretty nonsensical without a definition. --85.231.180.45 (talk) 18:54, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

This page is a mess

This page is a mess with two/three areas vying for the word haptic(s) The area may be better described in three sections

• Haptic_communications alternatively Haptic_behaviour

To contain most of what is currently on this page (Haptics)

• Haptic_perception (ie the use of haptics in the psychology of perception)

Possibly the introductory page since Gibson (1965) and Titchner (1895) Amer. Jrnl. Psychol. VIII. 82 were both using the word well before the usage currently outlined on these pages.

• Haptic_technology

currently filed under the page Haptic —Preceding unsigned comment added by W.Harwin (talk • contribs) 19:08, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

move portions from haptics

pls see Talk:Haptics#Revert to disambiguation page? Merge with Haptic Communication?. thanks. Fgnievinski (talk) 15:48, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Negative touching and abuse not covered.

Negative touching, non consensual touching, bad boundaries and abuse not covered.--Penbat (talk) 10:35, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

SPC 2100 Rock Desjardins plan to editRockbd (talk) 21:15, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

For my Class project I plan on editing the article Haptic communication, it seems to need to be revamp, it has insufficient inline citation, it lacks elaborations of introduced topics, books I plan on using/ adding The Five Love Languages, and Men Are from Mars, Women Are from Venus . I plan on also cheking citaions for broking links and accuracy.Rockbd (talk) 21:15, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

This page needs review

Many portions of this page are scarcely cited. Many portions of this page are also poorly worded and contain grammatical errors to a degree that is both distracting and confusing for the reader. These include many run-on sentences, comma splices, phrases such as "and etc.", and more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.16.142.194 (talk) 02:44, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

too smarmy, boring...

It's like the author is too polite to say anything. For just as examples; these quotes are too abstract, I understand them, but I'VE NEVER seen it, are you making this stuff up?

"....These touches can be further classified as compliance, attention-getting, and announcing a response. 
  Compliance: Attempts to direct behavior of another person, and often, by implication, to influence attitudes or feelings. 
   Attention-getting: Serve to direct the touch recipient’s perceptual focus toward something. 
   Announcing a response: Call attention to and emphasize a feeling state of initiator; implicitly requests affect response from another.

Each one needs examples. "Encyclopedic style" does not mean dry and boring, nor too afraid to say something. But the photo (head patting) may exhibit paternalism, a form of dominance not mentioned here, but something people can actually relate to.

Also, the article sometimes drifts into touching — forgetting the article is about communication. Finally, while touch is vital, you haven't fulfilled your wild claims that Haptic communication is so dire, —one feels ripped off. —Cheers!
--2602:306:CFCE:1EE0:79E5:B5F9:5709:7E44 (talk) 23:09, 24 May 2018 (UTC)Doug Bashford

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Caressing (horse) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 19:34, 28 September 2021 (UTC)