Talk:Cognitive bias
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details. | ||||||||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. | ||||||||
| Mid | This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale. | ||||||||
|
|||||||||
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
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
