Changes

Jump to: navigation, search

User:Sebastian

29 bytes removed, 28 July
no edit summary
* [[Timeline of contact tracing in the COVID-19 pandemic]] ('''Tentative payment accepted''')
* [[Timeline of calorie restriction]] ('''Tentative payment accepted''')
* [[Timeline of cognitive biases]]
** Issa: "1753: the anthropomorphism row has "availability bias" in the bias type column. Is that because anthropomorphism is a kind of availability bias (human-like models come to mind more easily?) or should that instead say anthropomorphism?"✔ (Sebastian:I removed the bias type till I'm certain)
** Issa:"Semmelweis effect: I think this row does not explain where the name of the effect comes from. My guess is that it comes from the way people rejected Semmelweis's discovery and refused to wash hands despite evidence of it working well. It would be good to explain that."✔
** Issa: "bandwagon effect: there's a row in 1848 that talks about first usage, and another one in 1906 that doesn't mention the 1848 one. If the term was coined in 1906, then maybe say something like how the idea and "jump on the bandwagon" phrase already existed, but the name of the effect was newly coined?"✔ (Sebastian: I clarified the 1848 row,which is when the "jump on the bandwagon" phrase first appears. The term "bandwagon effect" would be coined later, in 1906,according to the info obtained.)
** Issa: " is the gambler's fallacy a more specific version of the monte carlo fallacy? They seem closely related so I would mention each in the other's row."✔ (Sebastian:Although the term "Monte Carlo fallacy" originates from the best known example, it appears to be the same bias)
** Issa: "1920 halo effect row: it seems like you repeat some of the info e.g. "The term was coined by psychologist Edwin Thorndike in 1920."[53][54] -- Thorndike and the year 1920 are already mentioned earlier in the row. I would integrate all the info into a coherent paragraph so that it flows better when reading."✔
** Issa: "a similar thing happens in the 1927 Zerigarnik row, where e.g. the journal name is repeated twice"✔
** Issa: "stereotype: 1850 vs 1922: if the 1850 meaning isn't the modern meaning (it's a little hard for me to tell since the definition given in the 1850 row is pretty vague), I would explicitly state this. Otherwise it's confusing to have two rows claiming first usage."✔/✘(Sebastian: One indicates first reference and the other the first use in the field of psychology. I could remove the 1850 row if indicated though.)
** Issa: For functional fixedness row, the Einstellung effect may also be relevant (or maybe add Einstellung effect as a new row?)✔
** Issa: the Stalin quote seems to be disputed, see https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin#Misattributed ✔
** Issa: semantic cues: this is interesting, but is it a bias? (I'm not too clear on what the scope of the timeline is supposed to be)✔ (it's not a bias)
** Issa: Risk compensation: I didn't know about the left/right example! The example I hear about most (from libertarian types?) is seatbelts vs placing a dagger on the steering wheel, which might paint a more vivid picture for readers.
** Issa: Some rows don't have a period ending them, e.g. 1967.✔
** Issa: I think Kahneman receiving the Nobel prize is notable (I think it's the first and possibly only time work on cognitive biases has led to a Nobel?).✔
** Issa: For Ben Franklin effect, the only row is about when it was first confirmed. It seems more natural to cover when it was first proposed (which seems to be what is going on with most of the other biases)?✘ (Sebastian: First proposals are ideal, but as I couldn't find them for some biases I decided to add content naming the biases at least.)
** Issa: 1976, ultimate attribution error: I think capitalizing White and Black is a bit confusing (at first I thought it was some made-up labels in a formal model, like White/Black in a game of chess).
** Issa: There are two rows for the false consensus effect, both in 1977. I would combine the two into a single row.✔
** Issa: 1998: the definition of implicit-association test is hard for me to understand, e.g. what is a "bipolar target"?✔
** Issa: 1977, self-reference effect does not have an explanation in the rightmost column.✔
** Issa: 1979, ultimate attribution error: I am a little confused by the "first established", since there is already an earlier row talking about it. Was it just a formalization before that was "not established" in some sense?✔ Sebastian: The row in 1976 describes an event prior to Pettigrew's formalization (1979) of the bias.
** Issa: 1979, planning fallacy probably should have a "Belief, decision-making and behavioral" in the second column?✔
** Issa: This is probably going to take a whole bunch of work, but eventually it would be nice if the rows containing specific studies that were conducted could mention whether the study has been replicated or not. ✘ (Sebastian: Can we leave this for a further expansion round?)
** Issa: I haven't gotten there yet in the timeline, but eventually talking about how the heuristics and biases literature became more mainstream would be good (through popular nonfiction books for lay audiences, blog posts, etc). For example I was introduced to this stuff via LessWrong, and I remember that a few years later my dad bought and showed me the book "Brain Bugs" which covers similar territory. Maybe this topic deserves a separate timeline though.
** Issa: 1986, bizarreness effect: I'm confused by this row because the two columns on the right seem to be saying opposite things. ✔ (Sebastian: The bizarreness effect has been disproved several times).
** Issa: 1988, Information bias: the event here seems to be missing context. What is "this diagnostic problem"? How is it related to information bias?✔ (Sebastian: I changed the event)
** Issa: 2004: distinction bias sounds a lot like the "less is more" one discussed previously. I think it would be good to highlight connections like this, e.g. by saying something like "A special case of the idea was previously proposed as the less is more bias, but this paper introduces a more general framework that not only includes this, but also include X, Y, Z biases" (or whatever the case may be).✔ (Sebastian: I pointed similarities, but they don't seem to be too closely related, nor a spin-off case).
** 2012, subadditivity effect: I couldn't understand what this meant "an information-theoretic generative mechanism that assumes a noisy conversion of objective evidence (observation) into subjective estimates (judgment)"✔ (Sebastian: I changed the event).
=== Expansions ===
=== Returned with feedback ===
* [[Timeline of cognitive biases]] (Requested on January 6, 2020)** Issa: "1753: the anthropomorphism row has "availability bias" in the bias type column. Is that because anthropomorphism is a kind of availability bias (human-like models come to mind more easily?) or should that instead say anthropomorphism?"✔ (Sebastian:I removed the bias type till I'm certain)** Issa:"Semmelweis effect: I think this row does not explain where the name of the effect comes from. My guess is that it comes from the way people rejected Semmelweis's discovery and refused to wash hands despite evidence of it working well. It would be good to explain that."✔** Issa: "bandwagon effect: there's a row in 1848 that talks about first usage, and another one in 1906 that doesn't mention the 1848 one. If the term was coined in 1906, then maybe say something like how the idea and "jump on the bandwagon" phrase already existed, but the name of the effect was newly coined?"✔ (Sebastian: I clarified the 1848 row,which is when the "jump on the bandwagon" phrase first appears. The term "bandwagon effect" would be coined later, in 1906,according to the info obtained.) ** Issa: " is the gambler's fallacy a more specific version of the monte carlo fallacy? They seem closely related so I would mention each in the other's row."✔ (Sebastian:Although the term "Monte Carlo fallacy" originates from the best known example, it appears to be the same bias) ** Issa: "1920 halo effect row: it seems like you repeat some of the info e.g. "The term was coined by psychologist Edwin Thorndike in 1920."[53][54] -- Thorndike and the year 1920 are already mentioned earlier in the row. I would integrate all the info into a coherent paragraph so that it flows better when reading."✔ ** Issa: "a similar thing happens in the 1927 Zerigarnik row, where e.g. the journal name is repeated twice"✔** Issa: "stereotype: 1850 vs 1922: if the 1850 meaning isn't the modern meaning (it's a little hard for me to tell since the definition given in the 1850 row is pretty vague), I would explicitly state this. Otherwise it's confusing to have two rows claiming first usage."✔/✘(Sebastian: One indicates first reference and the other the first use in the field of psychology. I could remove the 1850 row if indicated though.)** Issa: For functional fixedness row, the Einstellung effect may also be relevant (or maybe add Einstellung effect as a new row?)✔** Issa: the Stalin quote seems to be disputed, see https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin#Misattributed ✔** Issa: semantic cues: this is interesting, but is it a bias? (I'm not too clear on what the scope of the timeline is supposed to be)✔ (it's not a bias)** Issa: Risk compensation: I didn't know about the left/right example! The example I hear about most (from libertarian types?) is seatbelts vs placing a dagger on the steering wheel, which might paint a more vivid picture for readers.** Issa: Some rows don't have a period ending them, e.g. 1967.✔** Issa: I think Kahneman receiving the Nobel prize is notable (I think it's the first and possibly only time work on cognitive biases has led to a Nobel?).✔** Issa: For Ben Franklin effect, the only row is about when it was first confirmed. It seems more natural to cover when it was first proposed (which seems to be what is going on with most of the other biases)?✘ (Sebastian: First proposals are ideal, but as I couldn't find them for some biases I decided to add content naming the biases at least.)** Issa: 1976, ultimate attribution error: I think capitalizing White and Black is a bit confusing (at first I thought it was some made-up labels in a formal model, like White/Black in a game of chess).** Issa: There are two rows for the false consensus effect, both in 1977. I would combine the two into a single row.✔** Issa: 1998: the definition of implicit-association test is hard for me to understand, e.g. what is a "bipolar target"?✔** Issa: 1977, self-reference effect does not have an explanation in the rightmost column.✔** Issa: 1979, ultimate attribution error: I am a little confused by the "first established", since there is already an earlier row talking about it. Was it just a formalization before that was "not established" in some sense?✔ Sebastian: The row in 1976 describes an event prior to Pettigrew's formalization (1979) of the bias.** Issa: 1979, planning fallacy probably should have a "Belief, decision-making and behavioral" in the second column?✔** Issa: This is probably going to take a whole bunch of work, but eventually it would be nice if the rows containing specific studies that were conducted could mention whether the study has been replicated or not. ✘ (Sebastian: Can we leave this for a further expansion round?)** Issa: I haven't gotten there yet in the timeline, but eventually talking about how the heuristics and biases literature became more mainstream would be good (through popular nonfiction books for lay audiences, blog posts, etc). For example I was introduced to this stuff via LessWrong, and I remember that a few years later my dad bought and showed me the book "Brain Bugs" which covers similar territory. Maybe this topic deserves a separate timeline though.** Issa: 1986, bizarreness effect: I'm confused by this row because the two columns on the right seem to be saying opposite things. ✔ (Sebastian: The bizarreness effect has been disproved several times).** Issa: 1988, Information bias: the event here seems to be missing context. What is "this diagnostic problem"? How is it related to information bias?✔ (Sebastian: I changed the event)** Issa: 2004: distinction bias sounds a lot like the "less is more" one discussed previously. I think it would be good to highlight connections like this, e.g. by saying something like "A special case of the idea was previously proposed as the less is more bias, but this paper introduces a more general framework that not only includes this, but also include X, Y, Z biases" (or whatever the case may be).✔ (Sebastian: I pointed similarities, but they don't seem to be too closely related, nor a spin-off case).** 2012, subadditivity effect: I couldn't understand what this meant "an information-theoretic generative mechanism that assumes a noisy conversion of objective evidence (observation) into subjective estimates (judgment)"✔ (Sebastian: I changed the event).
44,609
edits

Navigation menu