Jump to content

Talk:Cognitive bias/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Practical Significance

This section feels like an advert for the book - if it is, should this section be deleted? If this section represents an example of the practical significance of cognitive bias, could the points in it be explained more simply? The book then could be mentioned as a footnote, rather than the main topic of the section.

"The latest advacement in decision mapping enables further empirical research on the influences of heuristics and bias on human decision making in contexts of risk and uncertainty. These techniques are presented by Facione and Facione in Thinking and Reasoning in Human Decision Making: The Method of Argument and Heuristic Analysis (The California Academic Press, 2007). [...] " 1maskingtape 18:22, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


Seconded

I had the exact same impression; reads like shameless self-promotion. Needs to go. --66.92.214.112 (talk) 15:59, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not experts on this topic.....

However, I'm sure cognition/intellegence is affected by gender, biological/ecological differences--222.64.25.91 (talk) 22:14, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment

This discussion page has been refreshed because the main article has been drastically improved. The largest change has been that all the gibberish POV laden content, orginally added by User:24.150.61.63 aka User:JRR_Trollkien, a known a banned troll, has been removed. All the previous discussion page content only related to that content and as such is no longer relavent. Headlouse 01:28, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

The opening paragraph is confusing. It contains a lot of technical jargon and it's over-linked. When I first read it, I did not even realize it contained a definition of "Cognitive bias." As far as I could tell, the term was not defined until the section "Types of cognitive biases." In short, the opening paragraph needs to be re-written to be simpler and clearer. Ravenswood 22:08, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

The second paragraph of the Overview seems to reinterate the first without simply using the term 'heuristic'. 66.41.6.89 08:49, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Just a heads up! The most popular link on del.icio.us today uses a partial copy of this article without appropriate attribution

http://www.healthbolt.net/2007/02/14/26-reasons-what-you-think-is-right-is-wrong

JB> --212.183.134.66 11:52, 29 May 2007

jargon

altho it would not be quite as precise, could the word "cognitive" be replaced by thought or thinking ? use of a jargon word like congitive is prevalent in wiki, because articles tend to be written by experts; the worst is snotty experts who think you are a dummy if you cna't understand their language. AGain, there is a balance between precision and economy and reaching as many people as possible; i suggest cognitive is not a good idea65.220.64.105 (talk) 16:30, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

This isn't Simple English Wikipedia. It's English language wikipedia. Let's use the correct English term for the article title, and explain jargon along the way. MartinPoulter (talk) 19:56, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

The article should have a History section

When telling and explaining about cognitive biases to the Layman (ordinary people), who have never heard about this before, then I often feel it would have been very helpful to have been able to tell them exactly:

  • Who first defined (started using) the term: "cognitive bias"?
  • For each of the more commonly studied cognitive biases:
    • Who discovered, investigated and published it first?
    • When and Where was it published?

I think the Wikipedia article about cognitive biases should have a History section providing this information.
Can anyone help? (I still do not have any of the information)
--Seren-dipper (talk) 06:03, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Opening introduction

The opening sentence for this article is misleading, in my opinion. Having an understanding of the psychology of cognitive bias, I reason that this definition is incorrect; cognitive biases are not solely based on not basing judgment on evidence, but can also be distorted lines of thinking. It should be rephrased slightly so that it is more general to the notion that cognitive bias is more of a "distortion" in thinking in relation to what is actually true or reasonable. The page that lists cognitive biases has this definition: "A cognitive bias is a pattern of deviation in judgment that occurs in particular situations." This is more general, and more correct, as bias from not evaluating evidence is a specific type-of cognitive bias and does not account for all. I will make the change and we can discuss modifications further. Cheers. --☯Lightbound☯ talk 19:06, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Citations list for articles on human cognition

You may find it helpful while reading or editing articles to look at a bibliography of Intelligence Citations, posted for the use of all Wikipedians who have occasion to edit articles on human intelligence and related issues. I happen to have circulating access to a huge academic research library at a university with an active research program in these issues (and to another library that is one of the ten largest public library systems in the United States) and have been researching these issues since 1989. You are welcome to use these citations for your own research. You can help other Wikipedians by suggesting new sources through comments on that page. It will be extremely helpful for articles on human intelligence to edit them according to the Wikipedia standards for reliable sources for medicine-related articles, as it is important to get these issues as well verified as possible. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 04:55, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Evolutionary psychology

The material in the overview purporting to be on evolutionary psychology was drawn from this source. That source summarizes the findings of the main research on cognitive bias and then speculatively attempts to give an explanation from the point of view of evolutionary psychology. However that explanation is tentative, making the source a primary source. As the authors write, "Cognitive biases present something of a challenge to the evolutionary psychologist. Because they depart from the standards of logic and accuracy, they appear to be design flaws rather then examples of good engineering." That the approach of a small number of evolutionary psychologists differs from that of the main proponents of the theory (Kahnemann and Tversky) is made clear in the conclusion of this article, which I will not reproduce here. It is therefore highly WP:UNDUE, misleading and a huge disservice to the reader to include this speculative approach in the overview on a par with a huge body of prior research which has found wide application (and won Kahnemann a Nobel prize). Wikipedia is not a blog. Mathsci (talk) 08:23, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

The source is The Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology. It is not primary.Miradre (talk) 11:00, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
It is a summary of research by the writers. Per WP:BRD, please could you discuss this more carefully and not revert war. The overview contains a summary of what has happened in the subject. This article is a tentative alternative explanation. As the authors write, "Adopting an evolutionary perspective turns this focus on its head." There is no indication that this approach has been generally accepted or that it has any significance in the subject. Here is a more recent research article by one of the authors and other collaborators. [1] Mathsci (talk) 15:57, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
It is a secondary source. You have presented no sourced evidence for that anything is incorrect.Miradre (talk) 03:37, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Cognition cannot be judgement, judgment is behavior

Change

  • "A cognitive bias is a pattern of deviation in judgment"

to

  • "...deviation in perception"

--John Bessa (talk) 13:03, 16 August 2012 (UTC)


Terrible example in criticisms section

Here is what it says:

As a practical example, if one should estimate his skill in throwing a flying disc as far as possible, one must get his estimate right on the spot or else he has demonstrated biased judgement.

No, this is incorrect, because an estimate would be a range, rather than a precise, on-the-spot number. I also have to point out that the example is not a cognitive bias at all; I suspect it was written by a college student who is learning about the concept of cognitive biases in their philosophy class and doesn't quite get it yet. Hanxu9 (talk) 12:42, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. It doesn't illustrate the concept of cognitive bias, and seems to misunderstand what a bias is. I don't think it's even repairable so I've deleted it entirely. MartinPoulter (talk) 13:09, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
I've also removed the sentence contrasting the Dunning-Kruger effect with the false consensus effect, because 1) D-K effect is not one of the standard cognitive biases written about in the literature, 2) there's no explanation of in what sense false consensus effect opposes it and 3) the sentence as a whole assumes a lot of knowledge on the reader's part which is inappropriate for an accessible encyclopedia article. The "dubious" tag now applies to the sentence before it, which cites a very useful source and doesn't explain it fully (and I'm not sure if that's even an accurate summary). MartinPoulter (talk) 13:13, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

reference

"The notion of cognitive biases was introduced by Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman in 1972" No before by Zajonc (1965), about the structural balance of Heider (1946) Robert B. Zajonc,Eugene Burnstein : Structural balance, reciprocity, and positivity as sources of cognitive bias, Journal of Personality, Volume 33, Issue 4, pages 570–583, December 196592.245.143.245 (talk) 07:25, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Unconscious bias

Cognitive bias is often called unconscious bias but there is nothing in this article about whether biases are conscious or unconscious.--Penbat (talk) 09:32, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Is cognitive bias limited to living beings

The Cognitive Bias article is written to only apply to living beings (probably humans). Is it time to change the wording to somehow include AI or natural language processing systems. It is possible they might be created with, or develop, a computerized version of cognitive bias.

Note: There is a Cognitive bias in animals article. DrChrissy (talk) 16:01, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cognitive bias. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:27, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Criticism

Do the references cited actually support this criticism? They are quite old. I don't think cognitive biases was a substantial area of interest when Popper was active, and Feynman's autobiography is not exactly a scholarly treatise. Does anyone have any insight as to whether this criticism is warranted, or whether there are any other reasonable critiques of the cognitive bias literature? Paul Ralph (University of Auckland) (talk) 21:12, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Revision of article

I am interested in the topic and have some prior academic background in cognitive psychology that would like to bring up to date by doing some reading. This is likely to mean major revisions. Immediately I found the opening sentence problematical, and unsupported by the cited source. Instead I would like to open with a definition from this reference: Wilke A.; Mata R. (2012). "Cognitive Bias" (PDF). In V.S. Ramachandran (ed.). The Encyclopedia of Human Behavior, vol. 1. Academic Press. pp. 531–535..--WriterArtistDC (talk) 01:47, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Carify

Moving here from the edit summary: Apokrif asked: people: what about the linked article Cognitive bias in animals? Should this article be titled Cognitive bias in humans and/or the other article be titled Cognitive bias in non-human animals?. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 23:00, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Pragmatically, the title of an article should reflect the standard usage of terms in reliable sources, and need not fully define the scope of article if that means having cumbersome titles that WP users would not use to search for information. Cognitive bias refers to human bias unless specified, which Cognitive bias in animals does, so no title change is needed. --WriterArtistDC (talk) 18:34, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

in the lede

"Furthermore, cognitive biases enable faster decisions when timeliness is more valuable than accuracy, as illustrated in heuristics.[7] "

i am slightly worried that this above formulation is not true, but rather the HEURISTICS are enabling faster decisions, while biases are the unwanted consequence of using heuristics, that is taking one's hasty decision off the mark. being wrong is not enabling faster decisions, it is the unwanted consequence of using a faster, though less reliable method (a heuristic) in making that decision. I guess, im gonna be bold and correct the statement accordingly. 89.134.199.32 (talk) 23:54, 10 November 2018 (UTC).

also the use of a faster method is enabling faster decisions WHEN that method is used (for whatever reason) and NOT when timeliness is a factor. it is that ones likely to use the fast method when and because the timeliness is of importance, but the pressing of time itself is not affecting how fast is that given method. 89.134.199.32 (talk) 00:00, 11 November 2018 (UTC).

Proposed merge with Cognitive bias mitigation

The article on cognitive bias is sufficiently small, specifically Cognitive bias#Reducing, that Cognitive bias mitigation doesn't need to be treated as a separate subject. Ethanpet113 (talk) 07:27, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Oppose - The current article is not small; at 33k it is at the low end of the readablility guideline, while the mitigation article is at 48k, approaching the high end of readability. The merged article would thus be large enough that a split would be considered in order to maintain wp:summary style. Cognitive bias is a core topic in psychology which needs improvement (I agree with its "C" rating), and appropriately sits at the center of an array of subsidiary articles, Cognitive bias mitigation being one.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 15:59, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
Closing, given the uncontested objection and no support. Klbrain (talk) 05:35, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Resolved

Possible Edits

I went through this article in detail and I have a few edits I’d like to propose. First, I was wondering if we wanted to include a brief summary of each section in the lead, which would act as an “introductory paragraph” of sorts. Second, I noticed that before the “Lists of Biases” chart, it mentions that the chart is a list of “commonly studied cognitive biases.” Does anyone have any references that could be added to them from recent studies? Finally, third, the “Skepticism” section is very small compared to the other sections of the article and doesn’t have many references. Does anyone know of what could be added to that section to make it more fairly represented, and does anyone know of any citations that could be added to it in order to help support the claims made there? Tyler Colgrove (talk) 01:34, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Cognitive bias diagram

I've restored the image shown here, removed a while ago by User:Girth Summit here: [2]. First, it is good to illustrate articles, and a quick Creative-Commons related image search suggests it's either this or nothing. Girth Summit suggested the image is WP:ORish. Well, it's a valid point, but first, such a criticism should be elaborated on. The image description states "Wikipedia’s list of 188 cognitive biases, grouped into categories and rendered by John Manoogian III (User:jm3) as a radial dendrogram (circle diagram). Category model by Buster Benson, biases linked to corresponding Wikipedia articles by User:TilmannR. The source below can be used to create translated or updated versions of this file." This is sadly not very clear. There is some description, but... what list? Where is the model by Banson, and what makes him reliable? That said, if the picture simply takes information from a Wikipedia list and shows it in a diagram, this is just a visual aid, not OR, plus - that's my second reason for restoring this - OR is somewhat relaxed for images - there is a ton of articles with images that are ORish or subjective (just recently Signpost praised the image for unrequited love, but this is very subjective, and a lot of infographics we use are ORish too). So I think the image is most fine, but I'd invite the authors to expand on the rather confusing description. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:09, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

It's a really good image when you zoom in. Weidorje (talk) 11:04, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
So, it's actually a compilation of WP pages. Someone did a fantastic job for Wikipedia. If there are any actual problems, they should be discussed. Otherwise thanks User:Piotrus for restoring the image! Weidorje (talk) 11:12, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
Piotrus There was a discussion in 2018 (here), which was formally closed with the consensus that the image should not be used due to the OR concerns.
Just for your information, I would like to add that after the last discussion was closed, there was an off-wiki canvassing campaign in which a person who was selling printed reproductions of the image tried to recruit experienced Wikipedians to help them get the image reinstated. The person said that they were the creator of the image - I have no way of knowing whether or not that claim was true, and I make no connection between that person and any Wikipedia account, but they were very obviously trying to use Wikipedia to promote a commercial product. Of course, we should consider the image on its own merits rather than the intentions of people who may be associated with its creation, but I think this context is relevant.
I still feel that the way in which these biases are organised is inappropriate OR, and that while the image is visually appealing, it is too far over the line the way in which it is organised for us to use. I ask that you self-revert your reinstatement, and start a new discussion here (possibly a widely-advertised RfC?) to establish a new consensus if you feel the previous one was flawed. Thanks in advance. GirthSummit (blether) 17:12, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
Just for the context: here is the tweet asking for assistance getting their image back on Wikipedia. Here is the website associated with the Twitter account. GirthSummit (blether) 17:26, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
And.. an afterthought. Your argument that original research is relaxed for images does not apply in this case. WP:OI, which you link to, states clearly that Original images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments (emphasis in original). This image does indeed introduce unpublished ideas - the classification of the biases, which are a major component to the image's design, is unsourced, and if memory serves, it is based on the creator's own ideas. If those classifications could be backed up by some reliable sources, my concerns about the use of image would be assuaged, but no such sources were forthcoming in the previous discussion - if another discussion were had and sources were found, that would be a good thing. I feel sufficiently strongly on this point that I am going to revert myself just now, rather than wait for you to self-revert: please don't reinstate it, but do please go ahead and start a new discussion if you disagree with my points above. Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 17:57, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
Girth Summit, As I noted above, I concur that the explanation of how this image was created is lacking. On the other hand, I don't think the image contains any significant errors (it has some unclear parts, as in - a few terms are duplicated, a few are bolded and no legend is provided explaining why, etc.), and overall IMHO it seems more helpful than not, given this article is currently not illustrated. In other words, I'd rather have a so-so infographic here than no illustration. I think User:Weidorje agreed with me, but clearly this talk page is not attracting many viewers. Perhaps and RfC would be helpful? Still hoping to hear from User:Jm3, who is active, sadly, User:TilmannR seems to be inactive since 2019... Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:08, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Piotrus, if your main concern is that we find an appropriate lead image, we could perhaps use images of Tversky and Kahnman?
I'm not saying that this infographic contains errors as such, I'm saying that a key part of its design is based on unpublished ideas, and so its use here would be prohibited by policy. If you want to start a new RfC on this I'd have no problem with that, it's been a couple of years since the last one and I guess it's possible that new sources have emerged that might support the ideas shown in the image. GirthSummit (blether) 05:51, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Girth Summit, You are right that the Tversky and Kahmnan would solve the lead image issue. Regarding the infographic, I understand your concerns, and I also share them to some degree, but at the same time I think most commons:Category:Infographics suffer from some form of OR, which is unavoidable. For now, I think we can keep the image removed and wait for a week to see if we get any other comments, and if not, we could ask the community for RfC. I am torn between seeing the image as useful/harmless but also potentially a step too ORish, given the very unclear explanation for how it was created (but, to repeat myself, I think most similar images we host have similar issues...). PS. Accidentally, within few minutes of browsing, I found for example Yinghuo-1, which has a diagram that cites zero sources... Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:10, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi User:Girth Summit. I asked for help navigating the complex Wikipedia moderation process, not for help re-instating the image or contradicting any community moderation decision. Your characterization that seems to say that I or others want to include the Cognitive Bias Codex diagram on Wikipedia for commercial purposes is unrealistic and unhelpful. Like everyone else here, I'm trying to make Wikipedia better, not sell things. I made the diagram because I thought it was useful; it was uploaded here because other people found it was useful or engaging. There's no commercial motive here. I've honored the community moderation decision as final and did not upload the image or re-raise the topic. Please assume good faith and don't imply I'm nefarious or impugn my motives.
User:Piotrus: why do you need help with the description? You're looking for pointers to published citations for the mental grouping model that underpins the categories I used in the diagram? Beyond the original 2016 publication and Wikipedia itself, there aren't really any hard prior academic sources that cite the exact same categorization. It’s teleological based upon the biases, but it’s fair to call it novel. I think Buster deserves credit for that work. If that aspect makes the derived diagram too original, then the case seems closed.
User:Piotrus, it's up to you and the rest of Wikipedia if you want to marshal a conversation about this. I'm not here to push a POV but rather to just answer the questions you and other asked. Hopefully if a debate does occur, it can happen without someone casting aspersions on me or my actions and contributions in talk threads.
As to the WP:OR concerns: I understand the POV expressed by one editor above that the structure of the diagram's content is too original. I don't think that's controversial — obviously, no one claims that it's just a rote table. If the standard being enforced is, "100% of original thinking must be removed from Wikipedia," then removing it is the right decision. It obviously is original, at least on some level. That it was a collaboration based on open Wikipedia content is perhaps interesting but irrelevant. I find the distinctions and arguments somewhat blurry.
OTOH, what seems pretty clear is that the diagram is an illustration of Wikipedia content that summarizes a large amount of very complex information into a concise, very compact form, and that people overwhelmingly have a positive reaction to it, usually finding the subject of cognitive bias to be deeper and more interesting than they imagined. Those factors seem relevant to me and I would go with WP:BOLD and WP:NO FIRM RULES but obviously, I'm biased. (If someone does decide to re-include it, we need to fix the fonts, because some Wikipedian (TilmannR? not sure.) drastically messed up the typography when they deleted my name and Buster's name from the Creative Commons credit at the bottom of the work.
The final irony is that in the years since its first publication, the diagram has now been cited in many different academic papers across several fields, as well as several published books, both academic and non-academic. Perhaps the diagram itself now merits its own article — KIDDING.
Have fun out there and good luck :) Jm3 (talk) 06:45, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
What happened there was that WP editors had concerns of original research relating to the image, whereby it was removed. This decision, however, was unfounded. At a quick search, the Cognitive Bias index Is a conception by Buster Benson, and the image was created by John Manoogian III. It has now been cited in several peer-reviewed journals, see Google Scholar. This case illustrates in a pretty amazing way how Wikipedia helps researchers. Since it is published, it is legit and should remain on the page unless a specific reason to remove it appears. User:Girth Summit, thanks for being alert in any case. Weidorje (talk) 08:28, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Jm3, What I'd appreciate seeing is clarification of the following: a) "Wikipedia’s list of 188 cognitive biases" what list was used? Presumably List of cognitive biases? b) "Category model by Buster Benson". Can this category model be referenced, and if so, to a blog, article, book, etc.? I will again venture a guess that the source is related to [3], although presumably there is an even earlier version before the diagram was made? My concerns are relatively minor and pretty much can be summarized as "best practices require that we clearly cite and link sources used, which was not done here". Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:48, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
A. Yes, the source is the article List of cognitive biases
B. See https://betterhumans.pub/cognitive-bias-cheat-sheet-55a472476b18 for the teleological classification system used. Cheers, jm3 (talk) 14:35, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Jm3, please take a look at WP:CANVASS, particularly the section on stealth canvassing. For any Wikipedian to reach out to their followers on Twitter in the way that you did would be inappropriate; when such a Tweet comes from an account which is exclusively concerned with the sale of a commercial product, and the request concerns Wikipedia's coverage of that product, it looks highly suspect. One of the main problems that administrators have to deal with here is people attempting to abuse Wikipedia for commercial gain - if that is not your intent, you should be more careful about how you conduct yourself to ensure that you don't give the impression of trying to do so. Read COI, and PAID, and ensure that you abide by the requirements there. GirthSummit (blether) 05:47, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
User:Girth Summit Yes, thank you. Out of respect for your concerns I deleted the 2018 post that you found problematic. jm3 (talk) 15:36, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi Jm3, I just circled back to this to see if there had been any further discussion - your ping to me didn't go through. Just FYI for future reference, fixing a previously messed up ping won't issue a notification after the fact, you need to add a new ping, with a new signature, on a new line. This is covered at WP:PINGFIX if you want chapter and verse.
Thanks for deleting that post, but it wasn't really what I was asking you to do. (Generally speaking, there's no point undoing canvassing attempt, since you can't really uncavass anyone once it's happened!) What I'd like you to do going forward is make the necessary disclosures when discussing this topic. I'm assuming Design Hacks is still in business (the website is still live, offering reproduction of this image for sale), and that you are still associated with it and receiving a portion of any sales income: if that is the case, then you have a financial stake in this subject which you should disclose. When I look at your userpage, I see no disclosure, and I'm not aware that you've ever disclosed that anywhere on wiki apart from above in this discussion. Please do read those guidelines carefully, and take the necessary steps. GirthSummit (blether) 11:39, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
@User:Girth Summit > make the necessary disclosures when discussing this topic
I can add something to my profile page. I've avoided subsequent debates on the topic because of my creator COI. Any financial stake is de minimis. As a Creative Commons work, the image has been widely shared and available freely for many years. Multiple derivative and translated versions have been created without my involvement, and these are also available to download or print freely. I joined this thread — against my better judgment! — because a user above tagged me as the creator, asking for some clarification or context. Decisions about including or excluding the work must be made by someone other than me because of COI. Jm3 (talk) 05:29, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
Jm3, COI issues are very touchy on Wikipedia. For what it's worth I don't think you have any substantial COI here, and trying to monetize this image is totally fine (this is why Wikipedia actually requires commercial-ok licenses and does not allow non-profit-only images!).
That said, I accept that given the tiny COI here you should not be the final authority here, as you say yourself - that's all very good per best practices. I asked you for some clarifications regarding the image's data, and I think that has been addressed now, thank you for your efforts before and now. Given that the image was also supported by User:Weidorje, I think we have 3:1 support for using the image, and I'll boldly restore it. That said, if User:Girth Summit would like to start an RfC about removing it, I would be happy to see what the community thinks, our sample here is still rather small.
My view is that the image is fine to be used here. I actually think that as a thumbnail it has limited usefulness, butit still a nice 'click through, and makes the article look better than with out. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:15, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
Piotrus, there has already been an RfC about removing it, linked to above in my first post on this thread. The consensus was that it should not be used because of the OR concerns. If you think it should be included, surely the onus is on you to establish a new consensus by initiating a new RfC? GirthSummit (blether) 07:25, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
Girth Summit, Ah, somehow I missed that first RfC. You are right, given that discussion a new one should be held for the image to be restored. Sigh. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:11, 23 May 2021 (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): RedheadWindchild69.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:57, 16 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): Freemjd.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:15, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 3 September 2019 and 12 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sharonm99.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:15, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 16 September 2019 and 18 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Joeacker95.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:15, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 8 January 2020 and 25 April 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sierra827.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:15, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 20 April 2020 and 20 July 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Joshthebold23.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:15, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Deviation from the norm??? Go on, pull the other one

Given how ubiquitous, prevalent, frequent, and pervasive cognitive biases are I am not sure that they represent a deviation from a norm rather than how human brains evolved.

Rational thought, let alone behavior, isn't normal for humans. We are MOTIvated by eMOTIons. (ahem, OK, a bit cheesy, I know, but they do come from the same original semantics).

For example, look at recent political discourse in the US, UK, Australia, Italy, Germany, Scandinavia, Canada, Mexico, most of the rest of North America, Europe, Africa, Asia, Oceania, and South America (Antarctica seems relatively tame. While it could be due to poor media coverage, I am inclined to think it has more to do with the fact that most down there have some background in science (i.e. the discipline, along with mathematics, by which we discover what is real), are screened for serious mental illnesses (of the sort that impair one's ability to test reality), and actually have to live with, and socially interact with, the people who they potentially could be just shouting at with their fingers stuck in their ears.

In any regards, the truth is that rational thinkers, e.g. scientists and mathematicians are not normal by traditional definitions in the psychological literature. I don't know if we are born with weird brains or if we are inculcated from youth to think completely different from normal people. While we may be lacking in social acumen (I am just kidding, well, sort of, I mean, I look at my geeky colleagues and really wonder where we came from some days.)

In my home country, we have millions of people who reject science, scoff at objective reality, embrace conspiracy theories (apparently based on how completely bizarre, contrary to evidence, and improbable they might be), and reject things they can see on multiple media outlets known to be unbiased and rigorous because a [pathological liar] told them not to believe what they can see (and he is no Jedi master, mind you), hear, read, or even experience first hand. The assault on my nation’s capital by its own citizens would not be possible if humans were rational. The war in Ukraine would not be possible if people were rational. Racism is not rational. 450,000+ people would not have died from COVID here if people were rational.

But, my typically long-winded, TL;DR point is that rational thought is not our default cognitive style. We like to think it is, in spite of abundant evidence to the contrary, which sort of proves the point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrKC MD (talk • contribs) 08:20, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Human Cognition SP23

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 20 January 2023 and 15 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Alessandro219 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Alessandro219 (talk) 20:28, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cognitive_bias/Archive_1&oldid=1201818552"