RationalWiki's 2018 Fundraiser

There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff — we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity.

If everyone seeing this today donates $5, we will meet our goal for 2018.

Fighting pseudoscience isn't free.
We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $20 or whatever you can today with PayPal Logo.png!

Donations so far: $3234Goal: $5000

Talk:Hindsight bias

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

A mess indeed. The definition given here contradicts the one on the cognitive bias page & really doesn't make sene. The "example" confuses things further. Surely hindsight bias means applying assumptions to past events based on our knowledge of later events (e.g. "the Second World War was inevitable" or "I knew that girl was gonna be trouble"). WèàšèìòìďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 12:32, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

By all means find out what it is an clean it up, I was going to zap it until a search turned up actual discussion of it. I thought it was just another post hoc fallacy from the description in the article. - π 12:37, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia's article on it is a stub. I think it can be summed up in a sentence or so, so I'm going to redirect this back to the cognitive bias page. WèàšèìòìďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 12:43, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
http://psychology.about.com/b/2009/07/25/hindsight-bias-psychology-definition-of-the-week.htm - at least sight it what ever you do. - π 12:44, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
http://psychology.about.com/od/hindex/g/hindsight-bias.htm - more fun. - π 12:45, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
http://www.apa.org/releases/hindsight.html - sciency. If I keep finding good stuff like this I might resurrect the article. - π 12:54, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Go for it. It would probably be an OK article. I just objected to the completely fallacious and confusing definition that was here before. WèàšèìòìďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 13:30, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
I'll add it to my list after all doubleplusungood maths purge is finished. - π 13:34, 14 November 2009 (UTC)