5 ms·

I don't know why you write a hacker news comment for this- I often see instances where hacker news has incorrect information. Your comment is pretty irrelevant

by kgarten 13y ago

I don't know why you write a hacker news comment for this- I often see instances where hacker news has incorrect information. Your comment is pretty irrelevant, if you cannot find errors in the current page. Yes Wikipedia is not accurate for some things, yet what's wrong with the article posted? Also, although I might sound like a hypocrite, if you find something wrong on wikipedia go ahead and change it.

alok-g 13y ago
In fact, the grandparent comment is an example of one of the biases listed there. :-)
- jasonwocky 13y ago
  I'm guessing that was the point.
Theodores 13y ago
Personally I see this list as not necessarily complete. For instance, as I see it, the term 'moral hazard' is as valid as 'gambler's fallacy' as a cognitive bias, however, I would not dare to edit the page and add it in. Another example is 'wilful ignorance' - this is when trying to think about something is so mind-blowing that the mind just goes blank. Despite the name of the term this is not 'wilful' - it is subconscious. It might kick in when the world goes to war or something serious like that. This is not the same as the 'Ostrich Effect' - this is conscious ignorance, e.g. if someone asks me about what shoes they should buy next and I really cannot be bothered to think about it then I make a conscious decision to be ignorant.
baddox 13y ago
I'm confused. I would have sworn that the comment was jokingly demonstrating a cognitive bias.
- mehwoot 13y ago
  Yeah, my joke was maybe too subtle.
bcoates 13y ago
Skimming the list and the cites, the page seems to be combining topics from a mishmash of different domains (mixing unconscious decision biases, rhetorical fallacies, misunderstandings of statistics, heuristics, and perception/memory effects), and heavily leaning on primary rather than secondary sources. It's certainly a list of Wikipedia pages, and the pages might be good ones, but treating the list itself as even a tentative fact about the world is probably a mistake.
mehwoot 13y ago
It was a joke.

by kgarten 13y ago

alok-g 13y ago

In fact, the grandparent comment is an example of one of the biases listed there. :-)

jasonwocky 13y ago
I'm guessing that was the point.

Theodores 13y ago

Personally I see this list as not necessarily complete. For instance, as I see it, the term 'moral hazard' is as valid as 'gambler's fallacy' as a cognitive bias, however, I would not dare to edit the page and add it in. Another example is 'wilful ignorance' - this is when trying to think about something is so mind-blowing that the mind just goes blank. Despite the name of the term this is not 'wilful' - it is subconscious. It might kick in when the world goes to war or something serious like that. This is not the same as the 'Ostrich Effect' - this is conscious ignorance, e.g. if someone asks me about what shoes they should buy next and I really cannot be bothered to think about it then I make a conscious decision to be ignorant.

baddox 13y ago

I'm confused. I would have sworn that the comment was jokingly demonstrating a cognitive bias.

mehwoot 13y ago
Yeah, my joke was maybe too subtle.

bcoates 13y ago

Skimming the list and the cites, the page seems to be combining topics from a mishmash of different domains (mixing unconscious decision biases, rhetorical fallacies, misunderstandings of statistics, heuristics, and perception/memory effects), and heavily leaning on primary rather than secondary sources. It's certainly a list of Wikipedia pages, and the pages might be good ones, but treating the list itself as even a tentative fact about the world is probably a mistake.

mehwoot 13y ago

It was a joke.