Talk:Proxemics

Close Phase and Far Phase

The terms "close phase" and "far phase" are used in the article. Can someone please define them? AaronWL 19:30, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Overview Section has bad links

The little bullet point links are all wrong except the personal distance one.

Creationlaw 17:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Relevance of Bentham

I'm not sure of the relevance between proxemics and propinquity within the hedonic/felicific calculus, but in case this is just me being ignorant, I will leave it be.

Bunceboy —Preceding comment was added at 14:06, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

None-sentence

According to Jonathon Tabor distance-spacing theories based on the early animal-like human of German zoologist Heini Hediger, as found in his 1955 book Studies of the Behavior of Captive Animals in Zoos and Circuses.

Huh? It seems like part of this sentence i missing. 72.75.86.126 (talk) 20:35, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

What does this line mean?

Can anyone explain what this quoted line means? I think there should be a follow-up sentence in the article saying, "In other words,..."

“ Like gravity, the influence of two bodies on each other is inversely proportional not only to the square of their distance but possibly even the cube of the distance between them. ”

--[ Dario D. ] 15:21, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Image improvement?

I don’t see how the new 08 Mar 2009 colored version of Hall’s proxemics diagram (below left), by User:WebHamster, improves on the original 06 Nov 2008 version (below right):

08 Mar 2009 version 17 March 2011 version	06 Nov 2008 version

The text is barely readable and I don’t see how the color helps. I would suggest someone revert to the former image (or make a better one). --Libb Thims (talk) 12:01, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Make a better one. We need larger (i.e. legible) text and metric. Colouring is okay, though I'd make it paler and swap the green and blue. JIMp _talk·cont 04:26, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I also found the illustration improvable so I've been bold and uploaded a modified version of the later one, addressing some of the issues raised above. It might be further improvable, so feel free to provide feedback. --Elekhh (talk) 20:43, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

It is better, but I still cannot read all the texts. For example, I think that you could enlarge the distance labels without any problem. As for the colors change, I have no idea if it's better. Jean-Louis Grall (talk) 23:17, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, apparently we were working on this issue at the same time :) I have made an image too to replace User:WebHamster's image. Now that I just saw that your replaced his image, I don't know what to do. So first I wont replace the image with mine. I think it should be discussed. Here is the alternative image (it can be further improved too, its my first graphic contribution):

(All distances are scaled.) Jean-Louis Grall (talk) 22:53, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

That's funny, after months of no activity we worked on it the same day! I agree the fonts in my edit should be further improved. The advantage of representing only a section is that it can be displayed at larger size. The disadvantage is that it might mislead readers to believe that proxemics is only about visual field, whereas it is about all senses (body heat, smell, sound, etc.) Let's see what other editors think, in the meanwhile we can both further improve both versions. Regarding colours I think is better to have less opulent, smooth colours. --Elekhh (talk) 23:55, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Difficult to learn from this article

It seems that this article just jumps right into the middle of the subject without enough introduction or context. It gives a lot of definitions (see "Types of space" and "Behavior categories") without explaining what they apply to. Ian01 (talk) 21:42, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Proxemics in ubicomp

There's a very nice magazine article about using proxemics in HCI/ubicomp: Greenberg, S., Marquardt, N., Ballendat, T., Diaz-Marino, R., Wang, M.: Proxemic interactions: the new ubicomp? Interactions 18, 42–50 (2011) Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 17:45, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Misleading?

The article has no balancing opinions and is presented as if the model provided is something of concrete fact. This struck me as I read that social space, the next available from "Good Friends / Family", begins at a distance of 4' / 1.2m. In cities and in social gatherings, even in outdoor events with very loose structures interpersonal space, the space between unfamiliar individuals is cleasrly most normally far less than this in daily interactions in which the distance could be seen as having meaning on its own. Having been struck by this fact then statements such as: "Social distance between people is reliably correlated with physical distance, as are intimate and personal distance, according to the following delineations", then begin to sound plain incorrect. I have no knowledge of the subject but, and having read the article on Edward T. Hall whose theoretical construct Proxemics is, it seems to me that the article may be misleading. Perhaps the physical distances that the artcile focuses on is simply a framework for the description of how people behave and react in different types of culturally-defined personal space.
LookingGlass (talk) 09:28, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Merge with Personal space

This topic is covered under two heading - same material. Both topics would benefit from the consolidation. See personal space Wiki-psyc (talk) 13:24, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree. Kvardek du (talk) 10:13, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Done Wiki-psyc (talk) 12:57, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Merge with Critical distance (animals)

This topic is covered in two articles - same material. I believe both topics would benefit from either a consolidation or a clean split of animal vs human. See Critical distance (animals) Wiki-psyc (talk) 18:30, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I can not dispute that the definition in the first sentence includes non-human animals, but after having looked at several other definitions, I am not convinced this inclusion is widely agreed upon. One quote I found was "Spatial signs, signals and cues. According to its founder, Edward T. Hall, proxemics is the study of humankind's "perception and use of space" (Hall 1968:83)." (my emphasis)

Merging animal spatial behaviour articles into Proxemics will, I believe, make Proxemics so large it will be unmanagable. Logically, it would have to merge articles such as Flocking (behaviour), Swarm behaviour, Shoaling and schooling, Herd behaviour, effects of stocking density in multiple livestock articles, etc. etc.

I have encountered this human/non-human animal dichotomy before. The usual way to solve it has been to have a human oriented article, but with a section in the article entitled "Other animals". Then articles such as Critical distance (animals) can remain as stand-alone articles, and are only summarised here in Proxemics, rather than being completely merged. Hope this helps.DrChrissy ^(talk) 19:40, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Clean split is the best way.--Penbat (talk) 19:50, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Oppose merge - for reasons already given --Epipelagic (talk) 20:08, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Clean split DrChrissy, you're right, the first sentence needs to be corrected on both articles. Clean split probably is "the best way". I made a first pass at those edits on both articles.Wiki-psyc (talk) 21:44, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Wiki Peer Review from Lina

This page has a lot of information on it, but there are definitely some things that could be added. In the Personal Space section, the actual distances that have been delineated for each type of personal space are mentioned later in the section – maybe it could be referenced earlier to define specificity a bit more. This type of measurement might help people have a visual idea of the different boundaries of personal space as it’s being explained. There is a section in personal space that mentions people uncomfortable with being in close proximity to those they don’t know and thus find it disturbing, but it could be mentioned that not all cultures feel that way since the Cultural Facto section isn’t until later. Under Cultural Factors, it could be helpful to elaborate the meanings of each culture defined in the beginning such as “linear-active” cultures and they say it’s people who are cool and decisive, but that doesn’t really reference their cultural norms of proxemics. It could be interesting to see if there was actual data that showed how much smaller of personal space individuals from India or Japan have versus the data shown earlier for personal space of those in the United States. Under the Territory section, there could be elaborations and examples for each type of territory to give a clearer idea on the definition. Under Applied Research, there seems to be an opportunity to add more specifically about organizations and remote working with its success perhaps attributed to perceived proxemics. Overall, this page is pretty robust, but there definitely is some organizational specific information that could be added and elaborated on in several sections. Hope this review helps! --Lbm53gu (talk) 20:35, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Peer Review from Natalia

I personally enjoyed the inclusion of Hall's work on this subject matter. By clearly placing this theory within a cultural context, this theory is able to become humanized and thus more easily understood when applied to an individual's own life. However, if one is to use this theory in the context of cultural studies, one must include much more insight and details describing differences between various cultures so that the audience can understand just how much societies differ based on unique norms, values, and beliefs. Furthermore, by going more in depth in specific cultures, the audience can clearly see how unique undertones of a culture can clearly separate and even create boundaries between various societies. As a result, the application section of this page can be elongated by choosing four or five cultures where the author can clearly explain different versions and understanding of personal space and territory and also explain how these beliefs came to be (historical context). Lastly, I liked how the author included a section entitled, "Cinema." However, this section needs to be extended and contain much more explanation pertaining to the topic. Without the extra material, this section does not fit well into the rest of the body of work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Natk415 (talk • contribs) 00:37, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Peer Review from Casey

I agree with Lina that, while this page is quite robust already, the applied research section is ripe for additional information. These two sentences: "An extensive body of research has been written about how proximity is affected by the use of new communication technologies. The importance of physical proximity in co-workers is often emphasized" need to be attributed.

Perhaps you could look into how virtual reality applies to proxemic theory. Companies may soon use virtual reality to communicate with coworkers across great distances. It may be worthwhile to look into how virtual reality affects perceived proximity among coworkers compared to the effects of older communication technologies.Catilton (talk) 01:30, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Peer Review from Jiaxin Yang

This page already has some critical viewpoints and clear descriptions of the proxemics theory, but it needs to be further developed and trimmed. The “organization of space” in definition a little bit vague. What does “organization” mean here? Discussed in Edward T. Hall’s theory and framework as suggested, the article explains many details about “personal space”, yet readers may not have a clear picture of what is “territory” after going over the page, with only a few pieces of dry definition. Especially when it comes much later than “personal space”.

The paragraph of “amygdala” is rather vague. Nonacademic readers may hardly get a better sense of the theory through the description here. The addressing the “monkey experiment” is a little abrupt and puzzling, although the author may intend to invite a vivid example. What is more, readers might also be interested in what kinds of strategies can be adopted to preserve personal space in today’s public spheres except for avoiding eye contacts. Are there any laws or regulation principles to protect people from being disturbed or harassed in public space? Apart from cultural factors, are there any environmental factors that may interact with the definition of personal space? Are there any related experiments or cases? Finally, criticism of the theory is missing. Wikipedia project collaborators may want to incorporate some of them. Jiaxinyang (talk) 14:58, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Peer Review - Group 1

I think the page is written in a way that is easy and understandable for nonacademic readers, but I also think the page has a tone that borders on being too casual. Sentences with third-person plural pronouns (we, us, etc.) should be recast to remove the pronouns and adopt a more formal, neutral point of view. I don’t think the use of personal pronouns is the standard for an encyclopedia. I think the page could use more information about the concept of territory to help balance the information about personal space. For the links, there is some inconsistency. In the personal space section, “family” and “friends” have links but “acquaintances” does not. I don’t think those words needs links, but while reading, I found myself wondering why some words had links and others did not. Overall, this is a very interesting theory and topic and I like that the page has images. Sp1008 (talk) 02:11, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

remove digital proxemics section?

The section on digital proxemics and the mention of it in the beginning seem like they were written by the author of the book Digital Proxemics https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Proxemics&diff=prev&oldid=721418908

and according to the book's entry on Amazon the book just came out at the end of March 2016. https://www.amazon.com/Digital-Proxemics-Formations-John-McArthur/dp/1433131862

So this seems like a clear case of trying to promote his book and so should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jccalhoun (talk • contribs) 23:28, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Does anyone else think this article seems too informal?

Hi everyone. This is my first time on a talk page, so please bear with me. That said, this article reads somewhat amateurish to me. For example, the Adaptation section says the following: "The idea of proxemics and having your own space is very likely to change due to the most recent global pandemic, COVID-19. People have talked about not giving hugs or handshakes to people anymore out of fear of becoming infected with the virus...Some people might not change their mind and will still love others to be close to them. Others may want to continue practicing social distancing, even with their families. It's important to know that using proxemic cues will allow people to understand whether or not you would like any physical contact with them." Does anyone else consider this to be below the usual quality of Wikipedia? I don't know how to better word it, but I figured I'd post here to let the more familiar editors know.

Thanks, ThatGuyNamedRon (talk) 10:23, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Quite right, @ThatGuyNamedRon: I'm not even sure the article ought to exist rather than be merged with some other. It is seldom read; not often edited. One nice thing about an article that receives little attention is, it's a good chance for Wikipedia:Be bold. You can make small improvements every day or two, giving us a chance to object, and if someone does object it doesn't have to be a big hassle. We more experienced editors tend to give ourselves too many things to do, so we put something like this very low in our priorities. Jim.henderson (talk) 10:18, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment

This article is the subject of an educational assignment at Georgetown University supported by the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2012 Q1 term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}} by PrimeBOT (talk) on 16:13, 2 January 2023 (UTC)