Talk:Dr. Fox effect

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Dr. Fox effect article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Psychology Low‑importance

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Skepticism Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Too technical

I marked the article as too technical with the {{technical}} template. Here's why.

What do (1) teacher expressiveness, (2) content coverage and (3) effectiveness (in this context) mean? I do not get the first two paragraphs of the article. After reading the third one, it would seem that that "Dr. Fox" should have had high expressiveness and low content coverage (for the experiment to relate to the effect), and that he acted like he was a good professor (is that "expressiveness"? Somebody is expressive if he "effectively conveys thoughts and feelings" [1], but what was conveyed there?) and talked about nonsense (is that "low coverage"? No, I think, low coverage means [1] the lecturer does not cover well the subject he's talking about, not that the subject makes no sense). I must suppose the article actually makes sense with enough background knowledge, but it seems to require IMHO too much.

--Blaisorblade (talk) 00:55, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article is excellent, and describes something that is known on an anecdotical level widely across academia. 2A01:CB0C:56A:9700:4061:7613:8527:D8BF (talk) 09:10, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Famous Example

"[William Feller's] lectures were loud and entertaining. He wrote very large on the blackboard, in a beautiful Italianate handwriting with lots of whirls. Sometimes only one huge formula appeared on the blackboard during the entire period; the rest was handwaving. His proof—insofar as one can speak of proofs—were often deficient. Nonetheless, they were convincing, and the results became unforgettably clear after he had explained them. The main idea was never wrong.

He took umbrage when someone interrupted his lecturing by pointing out some glaring mistake. He became red in the face and raised his voice, often to full shouting range. It was reported that on one occasion he had asked the objector to leave the classroom. The expression "proof by intimidation" was coined after Feller's lectures. During a Feller lecture, the hearer was made to feel privy to some wondrous secret, one that often vanished by magic as he walked out of the classroom at the end of the period. Like many great teachers, Feller was a bit of a con man." 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:10A1:AEAE:6776:A6DB (talk) 12:38, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reference missing

A reference to the Air Force study should be included. Looks like this could be it: http://faculty.econ.ucdavis.edu/faculty/scarrell/profqual2.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.162.132.160 (talk) 20:28, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Inconsistent dates

The original study is referred to as taking place in 1970, but later it's referred to as taking place in 1973. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.162.132.160 (talk) 20:30, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Should not use the term "irrelevant"

At the very top paragraph, the term "irrelevant" in the phrase "[lectures] on an irrelevant topic" is misleading. The field of game theory has wide application, subjects such as mate-finding strategies and morality can be easily placed on a game-theoretic basis and might be of interest to medical professionals - especially psychologists.

On first reading, the viewer assumes that the lectures were legitimate, but irrelevant. Later on, we see that the lectures were actually fraudulent.

The word "fraudulent" should be used here instead, or perhaps a different word implying illegitimacy. 71.161.217.203 (talk) 22:47, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the word irrelevant may cause misunderstanding. However your phrase "mate-finding strategies" sounds suspiciously similar to nonsense peddled by a pickup artist. Can you further explain this please? MrEarlGray (talk) 13:55, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]