Talk:Bias blind spot
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Bias blind spot article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | 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. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
external link
Emily Pronin: Am I as biased as you? well, doesn´t work... Twitch inc. 21:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
bias or fallacy
The article currently begins, "The bias blind spot is the cognitive bias of failing to compensate for one's own cognitive biases." This seems wrong to me. It's a fallacy not to correct for ones biases but it is not a bias itself. Jason Quinn (talk) 04:56, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure it's described in the sources as a bias: never seen it described as a fallacy. It's a specific exaxmple of Illusory superiority, also known as superiority bias. HTH. MartinPoulter (talk) 19:15, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
question about interpretation
I'd like to know whether the following sentence:
- When they had to explain their judgments, they used different strategies for assessing their own and others' bias.
Would be better expressed as:
- When they had to explain their judgments, they used a different strategy for assessing their own bias from the strategy they used to assess the others' bias.
124.107.146.23 (talk) 06:07, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Done
Would love to work on this article
Anyone else watching this also want to see the article get better?
Here’s a link I found which i would like to reference better in opening lines:
https://www.cmu.edu/news/stories/archives/2015/june/bias-blind-spot.html
(posting from phone - please forgive typos) DrMel (talk) 17:51, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
- @DrMel: You're very much welcome make improvements. This is quite a low-quality article with not many scholarly references, about a topic which has a big published literature, so there is loads of scope to improve it. The only point I'd make it that when you see a lay summary of research, like the one you've linked, always check the paper it's summarising. Press releases about science can often distort or exaggerate what the science has actually found: university press departments naturally want to talk up the research that is being done. So it's worth checking and citing the original paper. Be bold! Cheers, MartinPoulter (talk) 15:48, 30 March 2021 (UTC)