| Revision as of 09:38, 7 September 2021 editTrialpears (talk | contribs)Administrators33,082 editsm 90 days← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 10:03, 10 July 2024 edit undoQwerfjkl (bot) (talk | contribs)Bots, Mass message senders4,012,049 editsm Removed deprecated parameters in {{Talk header}} that are now handled automatically (Task 30)Tag: paws [2.2] |
| (31 intermediate revisions by 23 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{Talk header|archive_age=90|archive_units=days}} |
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
{{Vital article|level=4|topic=Society|class=FA}} |
|
| ⚫ |
{{American-English}} |
|
|
{{ArticleHistory|action1=GAN |
|
{{ArticleHistory|action1=GAN |
|
|action1date=14:56, 29 September 2009 |
|
|action1date=14:56, 29 September 2009 |
| Line 28: |
Line 26: |
|
| topic = Psychology |
|
| topic = Psychology |
|
|currentstatus=FA |
|
|currentstatus=FA |
|
|maindate=23 July 2010 |
|
|maindate=23 July 2010 |
|
|
|maindate2=19 August 2022 |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=FA|vital=yes|1= |
|
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject Alternative Views|class=FA|importance=Top}} |
|
{{WikiProject Alternative Views|importance=Top}} |
|
{{WikiProject Business|class=FA|importance=High}} |
|
{{WikiProject Business|importance=High}} |
|
{{WikiProject Philosophy|logic=yes|importance=mid|class=FA}} |
|
{{WikiProject Philosophy|logic=yes|importance=mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Politics|class=FA|importance=High}} |
|
{{WikiProject Politics|importance=High}} |
|
{{WikiProject Psychology|class=FA|importance=Mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Psychology|importance=Mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Skepticism|class=FA|importance=top}} |
|
{{WikiProject Skepticism|importance=top}} |
|
{{WikiProject Statistics|class=FA|importance=Mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Statistics|importance=Mid}} |
|
{{dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment | course = Misplaced Pages:Wiki_Ed/University_of_Massachusetts_Lowell/Sociology_of_Mass_Media_(Fall) | assignments = ] }} |
|
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
⚫ |
{{American-English}} |
|
|
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|
| algo = old(180d) |
| ⚫ |
|maxarchivesize = 250K |
|
|
⚫ |
| archive = Talk:Confirmation bias/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|counter = 2 |
|
| counter = 1 |
| ⚫ |
|minthreadsleft = 1 |
|
|
⚫ |
| maxarchivesize = 150K |
|
|algo = old(90d) |
|
|
|
| archiveheader = {{Talkarchivenav}} |
| ⚫ |
|archive = Talk:Confirmation bias/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|
|
| minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|
⚫ |
| minthreadsleft = 1 |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
== Citations needed == |
|
== Positive bias == |
|
|
|
|
There are multiple missing sources. The "Definition and context" section (last paragraph), "Biased memory recall of information" section (fourth paragraph, last sentence), "Social media" section (second paragraph, last sentence), "Recruitment and selection" section (last sentence). These issues have to be addressed to keep the featured status of this article. ] (]) 12:02, 8 February 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== "Criticism" section == |
|
|
|
|
|
Moving this anonymously-added text from the article to Talk because it's not appropriate in its current form but some insights from it probably belong in the article. A good quality article shouldn't have a "Criticism" section; it should fairly represent the whole evidence about the topic. By the same token, if one publication argues that the academic consensus is wrong, it doesn't deserve equal representation with decades of academic consensus and highly replicated results. |
|
|
This text is in dubious English ("search for truth under climate change conditions"?) and the citations are ill-formed. Most relevantly, the things that are "criticised" in these arguments are not confirmation bias. Confirmation bias is not "the allegation that brains evolved to confirm beliefs" and it is not "the claim that anger at an argument that contradicts a belief would be proof of the contradiction of the belief being the cause of anger" so though there are probably legitimate arguments being described here, they don't connect with the core of the article. |
|
|
|
|
|
<nowiki> |
|
|
== Criticisms == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Please create a redirect page titled "]" that points to this article. Or explain to me how to create such a page. ] (]) 07:01, 19 May 2024 (UTC) |
|
One criticism of the allegation that brains evolved to confirm beliefs is that in any environment where it was possible to survive without knowing the truth, a brain that only made the same processing steps leading to the decision but skipping confirmation steps after the decision had been fixed would make the same decisions to a lower cost of energy than a brain searching for confirmation. It is therefore argued that while evolution can select for brains that search for truth under climate change conditions, and for brains that make simple instinctual decisions without rationalization under stable climate conditions, evolution can never select for brains that first make irrational decisions and then rationalize them. It is also argued that since the same hypothesis can and often do make a wide range of predictions with different implications in different contexts, evolutionary psychology's cost and benefit analyses of false hypotheses are misguided in their assumption that the implications of one false hypothesis could be classified as "mild" or "severe" as if one hypothesis only made one or two predictions.<ref> Adapting Minds|David J Buller|2005</ref> There are also criticisms of alleged evidence for confirmation bias, such as the claim that anger at an argument that contradicts a belief would be proof of the contradiction of the belief being the cause of anger which is not the case since there are other possible aspects of the argument that can be the cause. In this context, experiments that allege to prove confirmation bias are criticized for not ruling out error sources such as imprecision of the argument being the cause of anger.<ref>The Myth of the Closed Mind|Ray Scott Percival|2011</ref> |
|
|
</nowiki> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:We shouldn't do that because "Positive bias" is not another name for confirmation bias, and there are other effects that "Positive bias" might mean. Take a look at ], ], ] and related terms. I've never encountered the term "positive bias": could you tell us in which sources you have found that term, and what was the context? ] (]) 13:23, 19 May 2024 (UTC) |
|
] (]) 09:00, 16 April 2021 (UTC) |
|
level-4 vital article is rated FA-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
