Talk:List of cognitive biases
This was brought over from wikipedia, it needs to be edited down for our site but I think working on these could be a good project. tmtoulouse beleaguer 17:50, 2 August 2007 (CDT)
- Which ones describe you? If you don't want to talk, its no problem. But if you don't I can't help. Resident vandal
- Thing is that most of us have most of these at some point, they aren't illnesses but byproducts from the way people just naturally think and interact. The trick is not to have a Bias blind spot and learn to recognize when you are being reasonable and when you are not. tmtoulouse beleaguer 17:57, 2 August 2007 (CDT)
- If you want to know though, which one I am most likely to manifest its Information bias. tmtoulouse beleaguer 18:00, 2 August 2007 (CDT)
- Oh, so you're... insane? I was thinking you were more like a Clustering illusionist, for no other reason other than the cool name. Resident vandal 18:06, 2 August 2007 (CDT)
- I'd listen to a band named Clustering Illusionist. --Kels 18:08, 2 August 2007 (CDT)
- Check out this signature! Clustering illusionist 18:12, 2 August 2007 (CDT)
- No, thats the delusion for Intelligent design theorist. tmtoulouse beleaguer 18:16, 2 August 2007 (CDT)
- And the problem with evolutionists is, perhaps, Texas sharpshooter fallacy? Clustering illusionist 18:20, 2 August 2007 (CDT)
- Interesting question is under what conditions thats a problem, thats basically the scientific method. tmtoulouse beleaguer 18:45, 2 August 2007 (CDT)
- Hmm...I wonder if the difference isn't that the scientific method requires revision and development of a new and improved theory, whereas in that bias you change the theory and claim that's what it was in the first place. As in, "I meant to do that". --Kels 20:21, 2 August 2007 (CDT)
- Thats how I interpreted it. Clustering illusionist 20:24, 2 August 2007 (CDT)
- Actually on second interpretation I think what it means is that you do not make any hypothesis at all until you have data and then make a hypothesis that fits the data after collection. Now that would be an antithesis to the scientific method and a fallacy. tmtoulouse beleaguer 20:27, 2 August 2007 (CDT)
- Thats how I interpreted it. Clustering illusionist 20:24, 2 August 2007 (CDT)
- And the problem with evolutionists is, perhaps, Texas sharpshooter fallacy? Clustering illusionist 18:20, 2 August 2007 (CDT)
- No, thats the delusion for Intelligent design theorist. tmtoulouse beleaguer 18:16, 2 August 2007 (CDT)
- Check out this signature! Clustering illusionist 18:12, 2 August 2007 (CDT)
- I'd listen to a band named Clustering Illusionist. --Kels 18:08, 2 August 2007 (CDT)
- Oh, so you're... insane? I was thinking you were more like a Clustering illusionist, for no other reason other than the cool name. Resident vandal 18:06, 2 August 2007 (CDT)
- If you want to know though, which one I am most likely to manifest its Information bias. tmtoulouse beleaguer 18:00, 2 August 2007 (CDT)
- Thing is that most of us have most of these at some point, they aren't illnesses but byproducts from the way people just naturally think and interact. The trick is not to have a Bias blind spot and learn to recognize when you are being reasonable and when you are not. tmtoulouse beleaguer 17:57, 2 August 2007 (CDT)
"The significance of these errors lies in the interpretation of important concepts such as science and religion. Scientific method attempts to eliminate these biases in evaluating and describing reality" If you read the whole article, that hardly seems true at all. Most of them have nothing to do with science or religion. Clustering illusionist 19:06, 2 August 2007 (CDT)
- Jeebzus, give me a chance! We're just getting started here! лайно!--PalMD-Goatspeed! 19:09, 2 August 2007 (CDT)
- Good heavens, who taught you that?! Clustering illusionist
- Im a man of many talents. BTW, i like the new wording, thank you.--PalMD-Goatspeed! 19:13, 2 August 2007 (CDT)
- New wording? Clustering illusionist
- Im a man of many talents. BTW, i like the new wording, thank you.--PalMD-Goatspeed! 19:13, 2 August 2007 (CDT)
- Good heavens, who taught you that?! Clustering illusionist
- Oh, and could you go over to CP and ask them about the FBI? That seems to be a welcome and popular subject at the moment.--PalMD-Goatspeed! 19:14, 2 August 2007 (CDT)
- It seems like a hot topic. I'll just let it sit. I'm no expert on cyber-crime, so I really better not get involved. Clustering illusionist 19:17, 2 August 2007 (CDT)
- No problem, neither is Andy. =D --Kels 19:22, 2 August 2007 (CDT)
- It seems like a hot topic. I'll just let it sit. I'm no expert on cyber-crime, so I really better not get involved. Clustering illusionist 19:17, 2 August 2007 (CDT)
- Oh, someone else made the edit, i guess...in response to your above critique, the wording was changed.--PalMD-Goatspeed! 19:18, 2 August 2007 (CDT)
- No, no I made the edit changing my comment if thats what your talking about. I strive for clarity! Clustering illusionist 19:33, 2 August 2007 (CDT)
Contents |
[edit] Ideas for what to do with this
Here is what I am thinking, and if anyone has input please do say it, I would like to create some sort of generic outline style that each article on these would follow. It would include say, the basic definition and any historically interesting information, a brief discussion about how each one is often used in promotion of pseudoscience and then include a table or template where we list cited examples from the web of quotes/sites that are exhibiting the given bias. We need to bring something to these that you can't just get at wikipedia I think our "angle" should be how its used and examples. tmtoulouse beleaguer 13:39, 3 August 2007 (CDT)
See bandwagon Keepto the left (in the UK) 13:54, 3 August 2007 (CDT)
- Maybe even a topic template?--PalMD-Goatspeed! 14:17, 3 August 2007 (CDT)
[edit] Gigantic Sucking Black Hole of Red Links
This article alone could cause Redlink Implosion on RW. It's undeniably a good article, but what are WE doing with it? Can we add to it, or do it any better than WP did it? And are we inteding to fill those redlinks here?! DogP 17:42, 14 September 2007 (MDT)
[edit] whoa, whoa
Guys I appreciate the de-red linking efforts, but this is a list whose purpose is to serve as a reference to make these articles, removing the red links to these removes the point of this entirely. 24.141.169.255 18:27, 14 September 2007 (MDT)
- That would be easier to buy if they were disappearing on a regular basis. By the way, DP, um, you removed frickin BLUE LINKS in your zealousness!!!! Now I'm going to have to revert the whole thing and redo it! humanbe in 18:40, 14 September 2007 (MDT)
- There is nothing inherently wrong about red links to articles that are worth having. 24.141.169.255 18:41, 14 September 2007 (MDT)
Not at all, but I haven't seen a single one of those articles being created, and those red links have been around for quite a while. Whatever. I give up. DogP 18:45, 14 September 2007 (MDT)
- Hey Dog, whatcha gonna do about the BLUE LINKS you removed? Go backa few revisions, find them, and put them back in? humanbe in 18:49, 14 September 2007 (MDT)
- Sorry I didn't mean to sound short, its not a big deal one way or another, if I or others decide to make the articles I can just remake the links. Its not worth getting bent out of shape about. I am just tired and stressed, my apologies if I came off harsh. 24.141.169.255 18:47, 14 September 2007 (MDT)
- As I look at this list, I see no reason for most of the articles. Most items are described in the list. Sure, we "could" have them. When someone writes them, they can add them to the list. As a "to do" list, this does not need red links. As red links, they won't attract attention - we have over a thousand single link wanted pages. Anyone who knows this stuff and wants to write about it will find this list and link what they write about. This means you, too. All you need to do is add "write cognitive bias articles and add links to list" to your todo list. Having them be red links serves no useful reference purpose (it would if we only had 73 "wanted articles", of course).
- I know you're worn out, but so is "Crewe Red Link". You wouldn't believe the crap people have linked to over the last few months! Anyway, do we have peace? Shall I chase down those blue links? humanbe in 18:49, 14 September 2007 (MDT)
As long as there is no drum circle involved. 24.141.169.255 19:10, 14 September 2007 (MDT)
[edit] Actor-Observer-Bias = Fundamental attribution error?
Aren't these biases exactly the same? The descriptions do not differ in any point, or do they?