Talk:List of cognitive biases/Archive1
This[edit]
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 frustrate 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 frustrate 17:57, 2 August 2007 (CDT)
- If you want to know though, which one I am most likely to manifest its Information bias. tmtoulouse frustrate 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 frustrate 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 frustrate 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 frustrate 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 frustrate 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 frustrate 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 frustrate 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)
Ideas for what to do with this[edit]
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 frustrate 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)