Talk:List of cognitive biases

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:List of biases)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Personocentrism: personhood-biasing, personocracy, to deem personhood (hypernymous to humanhood) the sole criterion[edit]

Google is male-biased using the face of non-androcentrism. (Kindness-biasing. I am kind, I support you, but in a way founded on the old values, with the mere addition of negation.)

When a woman Googles about the personhood-biasing against the mathematical universe, is forced to read that the sole criterion and our only focus on all topics is the males; even as enemies or evildoers. Thought beyond maledom isn't the mere anti-androcracy!

The antonyms of personocentrism/personocracy/person-biasing/personhood-biasing are mathocentrism/mathocracy/math-biasing, scientocentrism/scientocracy/science-biasing[edit]

Most people are personocentrist, not mathocentrist.

In economy people are mathocentrist and egocentrist. They themselves are people. The term personocentrism/personocracy/personhood-biasing is problematic, because they themselves are people, but they don't necessarily care about others being nonsociocentrist, -ic/sociocratist, -ic/social-biasing.

"Extraordinarity bias" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Extraordinarity bias. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 20#Extraordinarity bias until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. (t · c) buidhe 01:31, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Fallacious example on gender bias should be removed[edit]

I tried to remove a fallacious example under Gender bias but for some reason it was rolled back. The example: "Or the assumption that academia discriminates against women even as they outnumber men in college and graduate school in the US,[55][56] and earn the majority of undergraduate and graduate degrees.[57]" need to be removed. It's not an example of a gender bias, which has just been defined as "A widely held[52] set of implicit biases that discriminate against a gender." Where exactly does "the assumption that academia discriminates against women" fulfil the definition of being a set of implicit biases? It doesn't, so it should be removed. //Hobbsansak (talk) 12:14, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Hobbsansak, I agree with your position, and the sources (which appear to be blogs anyway) don't support the assertion that this is a cognitive bias. I've removed it again. GirthSummit (blether) 12:26, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Thank you, Girth Summit. Your phrasing of the reason for the removal was better than mine so hopefully it won't be rolled back again. :) //Hobbsansak (talk) 12:47, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Hobbsansak, to be honest, you shouldn't have been reverted in the first place. However, we have thousands of edits every day where try to change articles articles to reflect their own particular point of view without reference to sources, using edit summaries similar to your one. If you mention the sources in your edit summary, people ought to at least check before reverting you. Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 18:41, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Selection Bias description is different from the linked article[edit]

The selection bias's description does not match with the description in the linked article.

The description on this page is: "The tendency to notice something more when something causes us to be more aware of it, such as when we buy a car, we tend to notice similar cars more often than we did before. They are not suddenly more common – we just are noticing them more. Also called the Observational Selection Bias."

The select bias page however describes it as: "Selection bias is the bias introduced by the selection of individuals, groups or data for analysis in such a way that proper randomization is not achieved, thereby ensuring that the sample obtained is not representative of the population intended to be analyzed."

Maybe they do agree and I am misunderstanding it. The description sounds more like the Frequency Illusion, which is mentioned as a form of selection bias. Maybe the Selection Bias should be updated to the Observational Selection Bias and be linked to this paragraph on the linked page? Either the description or the link seems to need updating.

Agree, that's the frequency illusion. Made a bold update. Let me know what you think. Paradoctor (talk) 15:27, 3 June 2021 (UTC)