Talk:Cognitive bias: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 16:30, 23 October 2009

Philosophy: Logic Unassessed Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

???

This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Logic

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@@ Line 29: / Line 29: @@
 However, I'm sure cognition/intellegence is affected by gender, biological/ecological differences--[[Special:Contributions/222.64.25.91|222.64.25.91]] ([[User talk:222.64.25.91|talk]]) 22:14, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
+==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 idea[[Special:Contributions/65.220.64.105|65.220.64.105]] ([[User talk:65.220.64.105|talk]]) 16:30, 23 October 2009 (UTC)