Talk:Cognitive bias

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Cognitive bias 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

Archives: 1: 10 months

Cognitive science (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cognitive science, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Cognitive scienceWikipedia:WikiProject Cognitive scienceTemplate:WikiProject Cognitive scienceCognitive science articles

Psychology High‑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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Philosophy: Logic 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

Mid

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

Associated task forces:
/
	Logic

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

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Incorrect redirect

bias

Wiki Education assignment: Seminars in Forensic Science

Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - SP24 - Sect 201 - Thu

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 March 2024 and 4 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sj4452 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Sj4452 (talk) 01:24, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Self-published encyclopedia

@Irath2024 In response to your post on my Talk page after I undid your addition of a reference to a self-published book. "Does [the book being self-published] provide you the right to remove it anyway?" Yes it does. "Great books are self-published and this is the case of this one. I have read it and it is." Wikipedia isn't a book review site: you want Goodreads. Maybe the book is a well-written or maybe not. A positive online review from an unknown person does not make something part of established knowledge; we look to peer review and to reputable publishers to establish that. For all we know, you could be the author of the book. Take a look at the guidelines at WP:QUESTIONABLE for more about Wikipedia's policy on sourcing. Cheers, MartinPoulter (talk) 12:57, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Established knowledge? It is up to the readers to establish knowledge by having access to maximum references, not you. They are enough smart to select one reference or another. With a view like yours, Arxive would have closed long time ago, yet thanks to it many domains have progressed so fast by opening for free so many publications.

Regards, Irath2024 (talk) 13:32, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The software platform that Wikipedia runs on, MediaWiki, is available for free. You can download it or find a hosting service, then run your own online encyclopaedia without Wikipedia's requirement for reliable sourcing or its prohibition on original research. If you're going to stay here, please learn what this community is trying to do, through the introductory links which have been shared on your Talk page and here. This is another friendly warning that if you're here to tell us our policies are wrong and that you want to ignore them, you'll be wasting your time and the community's. MartinPoulter (talk) 18:53, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cognitive bias in article

There appears to be a cognitive bias to me in the first statement made in this article. It claims cognitive bias is a systematic deviation from norm, when on the contrary it is often the norm to be cognitively biased and most people are shown to be irrational in a lot of cases. https://eujap.uniri.hr/rationality-in-mental-disorders-too-little-or-too-much/ https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S136466132100125X Kuzmanovic, B.; Rigoux, L.; Vogeley, K. (2014-01-14). "Brief Report: Reduced Optimism Bias in Self-Referential Belief Updating in High-Functioning Autism". Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders. 49 (7): 2990–2998. doi:10.1007/s10803-016-2940-0. PMID 27757736. S2CID 254571982.

I'd therefore put it that cognitive bias is not a deviation from norm as the norm is to have cognitive bias and is not a deviation from rationality as people that are more irrational are the ones more prone to having cognitive bias, rather than people strongly suggested to have enhanced rationality. I have put this here as I am not sure how to amend the article, if indeed it even needs to be amended. My thoughts may be considered to be original thought and therefore Wikipedia biased against including this in articles. aspaa (talk) 07:58, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]