New cognitive bias articles on wikipedia (update)
post by nerfhammer · 2012-03-09T20:13:43.899Z · LW · GW · Legacy · 19 comments- Conservatism
- Curse of knowledge
- Duration neglect
- Extension neglect
- Extrinsic incentives bias
- Illusion of external agency
- Illusion of validity
- Insensitivity to sample size
- Lady Macbeth effect
- Less-is-better effect
- Naïve cynicism
- Naïve realism
- Reactive devaluation
- Rhyme-as-reason effect
- Scope neglect
Also conjunction fallacy has been expanded.
19 comments
Comments sorted by top scores.
comment by satt · 2012-03-10T12:56:10.740Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I wanted to write a compendium of biases in book form. I didn't know how to get a book published, though.
Silver lining: in the long run, there's a decent chance more people will read what you wrote on Wikipedia than if you put it in a book.
Replies from: nerfhammer↑ comment by nerfhammer · 2012-03-10T19:47:52.007Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Vastly, vastly more likely.
Everyone once in awhile someone sends me a link to an article on wikipedia saying I would find it interesting... and as a matter of fact, I found it especially interesting: I wrote it!
Or, I added a quote to Daniel Kahneman's page that has since appeared in almost every bio of Kahneman that I've seen since. For example, David Brooks wrote a column on Kahneman a few months ago and used the same exact quote I added, so that's millions of people indirectly.
Boggles the mind, really.
comment by Nisan · 2012-03-10T04:08:03.711Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Are you http://neurosail.com/? It looks awesome.
Replies from: nerfhammer↑ comment by nerfhammer · 2012-03-10T05:23:10.581Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
yup, that's mine too
Replies from: tgb↑ comment by tgb · 2012-03-10T14:27:45.977Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Unsolicited website advice: it changes backgrounds far too quickly for me to read and look at pictures comfortably. There should be some obvious way to get it to stop moving.
Replies from: nerfhammer↑ comment by nerfhammer · 2012-03-10T19:41:42.534Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Criticism is totally fair. I was getting frustrated with it, so I decided to get something done quickly that I could replace later. So, there are flaws.
It's supposed to stop cycling if you mouseover it.
comment by lukeprog · 2012-03-10T05:43:44.869Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Re: publishing.
Self-publishing is easy. As for publishing with a mainstream press, I recommend How to Sell, Then Write Your Nonfiction Book.
Replies from: nerfhammer↑ comment by nerfhammer · 2012-03-10T19:51:32.061Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
What if I want to write, then sell it? Something that might be achievable could be like what Skeptic's Dictionary or You Are Not So Smart did, they started out as websites that slowly filled out and were ultimately published as books.
(Why isn't there a Singularity Institute Press?)
Replies from: lukeprog↑ comment by lukeprog · 2012-03-10T20:22:22.729Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Something that might be achievable could be like what Skeptic's Dictionary or You Are Not So Smart did, they started out as websites that slowly filled out and were ultimately published as books.
True, that does work sometimes.
Why isn't there a Singularity Institute Press?
I haven't researched this, but I doubt it would be a profitable distraction from our core work.
comment by Alex_Altair · 2012-03-09T22:51:57.718Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Could you give us some discussion as to how you found these? Did LWers write them?
Replies from: nerfhammer↑ comment by nerfhammer · 2012-03-09T23:08:17.629Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I wrote all of them
Replies from: Eliezer_Yudkowsky, RomeoStevens, cousin_it, Alex_Altair, lukeprog↑ comment by Eliezer Yudkowsky (Eliezer_Yudkowsky) · 2012-03-10T00:28:32.233Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Holy shmorkies. Thanks and congratulations!
Replies from: nerfhammer↑ comment by nerfhammer · 2012-03-10T19:53:50.733Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Glad you like it. There are zillions more where that came from
↑ comment by RomeoStevens · 2012-03-10T01:56:55.435Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
An upvote doesn't seem like nearly enough for this. A very sincere thanks for the hard work.
↑ comment by Alex_Altair · 2012-03-09T23:40:08.854Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Wow! Thanks for all your work!
comment by NancyLebovitz · 2012-08-17T15:41:51.738Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Simplification bias-- this one might be standard, but if so, I don't know a usual name for it.
It's mentioned in NLP that people tend to drop "frames"-- if something is said, people will react to it as though the speaker is endorsing it as true, even though the speaker might be mentioning it as something someone else said.
The link describes people treating a possibility as a certainty. One flavor of this is called catastrophizing, but I don't think that sort of simplification necessarily leads to anchoring on the worst possible outcome.
comment by JohnWittle · 2012-03-14T18:55:04.454Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Slightly offtopic: reading through Naive Realism... How does one combat this bias? Or rather, how does one know when one has eliminated it?