Talk:Knowledge neglect

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.
	This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.
	This article has been marked as needing an infobox.

We are still working on this article and feedback is welcome! Qharris232 (talk) 15:14, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I like the two examples you provided, however I feel like these are two both laboratory examples and not necessarily something that would be encountered in real life. While I feel those are suitable, you may want to talk about a more applicable scenario, such as a student taking a test and forgetting a simple piece of prior knowledge or something of that sort, because you are bound to face some criticism from a very application based side. Ceckersley (talk) 22:06, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I applaud you for starting your own wikipedia page because I understand this requires a significant amount of work. I think you are off to a good start, but I agree with “Ceckersley" as you have only included two laboratory examples and the reader would like to know how this applies to his or her daily life. In addition, in the “Hypothesis for Cause” section, I think it would be beneficial to include a subsection on divided attention and under it, include the associated research that has been conducted when an individual’s attention is fragmented. You clearly have begun delineating the research with Dr. Marsh’s and Dr. Umanath’s study, but I would try to include more because this will only supplement and provide more evidence to a bold claim. Finally, as a side note, you can create a shortcut for your intext citations [i.e. (Marsh, Umanath, 2014)] by making it a simple number so your references section is in a number list and the reader is not distracted by a plethora of names and dates. Jmt59 (talk) 17:47, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Example change, clarification for suggested causes

I love that this page starts with two simple lab examples of knowledge neglect. It is often the case that students will look at wikipedia pages to gain a fast understanding of the concept, which this page achieves. While you have listed two examples of knowledge neglect where participants fail to identify errors embedded in fictional stories, they are basically the same example, but with different wording. My suggestion is to delete one of the two examples you already have (I think you should keep the Moses Illusion), then briefly describe an instance where knowledge neglect is demonstrated in real life. For example, a professor might make the mistake of saying, "Let's talk about Daniel Schacter's 'memory palace' theory as explained in the novel 'Moonwalking with Einstein. Students know that Daniel Schacter did not write Moonwalking with Einstein, but they may answer the question without realizing the mistake, which could result in confusion for other students. KieraMolloy18 (talk) 19:27, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The explanation of truth bias is a little bit confusing in "Hypothesis for Cause". I think the concept will be more easily understood if you change it to, "The truth bias is the idea that people are inclined to deem things true, regardless of the source of information or prior knowledge. In other words, we seldom question everything we are told, but rather just assume truth. For this reason, individuals may fall victim to knowledge neglect simply because they expect what they're hearing to be true." The second point made in this paragraph, about fragmented attention, still includes a little bit about truth bias. I suggest, "Knowledge neglect could also be explained by the idea that people's attention is often fragmented, and that their cognitive capacity is likely being utilized to present an answer to the question, rather than detect errors in the question itself." KieraMolloy18 (talk) 19:27, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]