Skip to main content

Home/ TOK Friends/ Group items tagged fallacies

Rss Feed Group items tagged

Filter: All | Bookmarks | Topics Simple Middle
kushnerha

The Psychology of Risk Perception Explains Why People Don't Fret the Pacific Northwest'... - 0 views

www.citylab.com/...398969

city lab innumeracy disaster gambler's fallacy psychology

shared by kushnerha on 15 Apr 16 - No Cached
  • what psychology teaches us. Turns out most of us just aren’t that good at calculating risk, especially when it comes to huge natural events like earthquakes. That also means we’re not very good at mitigating those kinds of risks. Why? And is it possible to get around our short-sightedness, so that this time, we’re actually prepared? Risk perception is a vast, complex field of research. Here are just some of the core findings.
  • Studies show that when people calculate risk, especially when the stakes are high, we rely much more on feeling than fact. And we have trouble connecting emotionally to something scary if the odds of it happening today or tomorrow aren’t particularly high. So, if an earthquake, flood, tornado or hurricane isn’t immediately imminent, people are unlikely to act. “Perceiving risk is all about how scary or not do the facts feel,”
  • This feeling also relates to how we perceive natural, as opposed to human-made, threats. We tend to be more tolerant of nature than of other people who would knowingly impose risks upon us—terrorists being the clearest example. “We think that nature is out of our control—it’s not malicious, it’s not profiting from us, we just have to bear with it,”
  • ...8 more annotations...
  • And in many cases, though not all, people living in areas threatened by severe natural hazards do so by choice. If a risk has not been imposed on us, we take it much less seriously. Though Schulz’s piece certainly made a splash online, it is hard to imagine a mass exodus of Portlanders and Seattleites in response. Hey, they like it there.
  • They don’t have much to compare the future earthquake to. After all, there hasn’t been an earthquake or tsunami like it there since roughly 1700. Schulz poeticizes this problem, calling out humans for their “ignorance of or an indifference to those planetary gears which turn more slowly than our own.” Once again, this confounds our emotional connection to the risk.
  • But our “temporal parochialism,” as Schulz calls it, also undoes our grasp on probability. “We think probability happens with some sort of regularity or pattern,” says Ropeik. “If an earthquake is projected to hit within 50 years, when there hasn’t been one for centuries, we don’t think it’s going to happen.” Illogical thinking works in reverse, too: “If a minor earthquake just happened in Seattle, we think we’re safe.”
  • The belief that an unlikely event won’t happen again for a while is called a gambler’s fallacy. Probability doesn’t work like that. The odds are the same with every roll of the dice.
  • For individuals and government alike, addressing every point of concern requires a cost-benefit analysis. When kids barely have pencils and paper in schools that already exist, how much is appropriate to invest in earthquake preparedness? Even when that earthquake will kill thousands, displace millions, and cripple a region’s economy for decades to come—as Cascadia is projected to—the answer is complicated. “You immediately run into competing issues,” says Slovic. “When you’re putting resources into earthquake protection that has to be taken away from current social needs—that is a very difficult sell.”​
  • There are things people can do to combat our innate irrationality. The first is obvious: education. California has a seismic safety commission whose job is to publicize the risks of earthquakes and advocate for preparedness at household and state policy levels.
  • Another idea is similar to food safety ratings in the windows of some cities’ restaurants. Schulz reports that some 75 percent of Oregon’s structures aren’t designed to hold up to a really big Cascadia quake. “These buildings could have their risk and safety score publicly posted,” says Slovic. “That would motivate people to retrofit or mitigate those risks, particularly if they are schools.”
  • science points to a hard truth. Humans are simply inclined to be more concerned about what’s immediately in front of us: Snakes, fast-moving cars, unfamiliar chemical compounds in our breakfast cereal and the like will always elicit a quicker response than an abstract, far-off hazard.
sissij

By Demanding Too Much from Science, We Became a Post-Truth Society | Big Think - 1 views

bigthink.com/...dont-trust-the-experts-anymore

society science brain science research

shared by sissij on 10 Feb 17 - No Cached
  • The number of people who today openly question reality are not the tin-foil hat-wearing kind. Increasingly they are our friends, and those who hold positions of power.
  • Indeed, the public understanding of what constitutes valid evidence, and a worthy expert opinion, seems to be at an all time low.
  • Well, a new study suggests that this wealth of information might be the problem.
  • ...6 more annotations...
  • A new study out of Germany has found that people are much more confident in the claims of a popular science article then they are in the claims of an academic article written for experts
  • It was also found that the subjects were more confident in their own judgments after reading a popular article, and that this was tied to a lessened desire to seek out more information from expert sources.
  • "easiness effect”
  • the issue arises from the manner in which popular science is presented; as opposed to how scientists themselves present data to each other and to the public.
  • This emboldens people to reject the ideas of experts who they see as superfluous to their understanding of an idea (which they have already grasped).
  • notably health
  • sissij on 10 Feb 17
     
    Although many people allege themselves being scientific when trying to convince others by using the scientific researches they read on the mass media, does that really make their points more reliable? Not really. The popular science is sometimes not as meticulous as the academic article article written for experts. In popular science articles, the authors often changed their writing style to favor the general population, like having a more certain tone. This appeals to readers' desire for simplicity and this tendency is called the "easiness effect", which I find is really similar to the logic fallacy we talked about in TOK. Science itself has more and more become a table that can make an argument seem more rational. However, science is all about the scientific method used in the research that is an art of systematic simplification. Without these element, the title "science" means nothing. --Sissi (2/10/2017)
sissij

The Danger of Only Seeing What You Already Believe | Big Think - 0 views

bigthink.com/...eeing-what-you-already-believe

research psychology bias social media

shared by sissij on 24 Mar 17 - No Cached
  • the blank canvas, an empty page, the unfilled columns in ProTools awaiting sonic imagination. Once completed, another journey begins. The distance between zero and popularity is complex. 
  • The creator is always in a relationship with their audience.
  • Humans are neopholic, by which Thompson means we are “curious to discover new things” as well as neophobic, “afraid of anything that’s too new.” 
  • ...2 more annotations...
  • For example, my dopamine receptors tingled when Thompson mentioned Joseph Campbell and Jeff Buckley, given that they’re both huge inspirations to me.
  • Thompson notes that as we age our explicit memory system wanes. We become more susceptible to confuse a statement that “feels right” with one that is correct.
  • sissij on 24 Mar 17
     
    I found this article very interesting as it discussed the logic fallacy and confirmation bias in humane mind.The danger of only seeing what they already believe is especially obvious in the era of Internet. More and more social medias use filter system to give viewers what they like to see based on their viewing history. Although this filter system can satisfy the viewers, viewers get a limited range of information. I think it limits the mindset of the viewers. --Sissi (3/23/2017)
Duncan H

The Materialist Fallacy - NYTimes.com - 0 views

www.nytimes.com/...s-the-materialist-fallacy.html

education research

shared by Duncan H on 14 Feb 12 - No Cached
  • The half-century between 1912 and 1962 was a period of great wars and economic tumult but also of impressive social cohesion. Marriage rates were high. Community groups connected people across class.
  • In the half-century between 1962 and the present, America has become more prosperous, peaceful and fair, but the social fabric has deteriorated. Social trust has plummeted. Society has segmented. The share of Americans born out of wedlock is now at 40 percent and rising.
  • Liberals congregated around an economically determinist theory. The loss of good working-class jobs undermined communities and led to the social deterioration.
  • ...7 more annotations...
  • Libertarians congregated around a government-centric theory. Great Society programs enabled people to avoid work and gave young women an incentive to have children without marrying.
  • Neo-conservatives had a more culturally deterministic theory. Many of them had been poor during the Depression. Economic stress had not undermined the family then. Moreover, social breakdown began in the 1960s, a time of unprecedented prosperity. They argued that the abandonment of traditional bourgeois norms led to social disruption, especially for those in fragile circumstances.
  • a new body of research has emerged, which should lead to new theories. This research
  • tends to support a few common themes. First, no matter how social disorganization got started, once it starts, it takes on a momentum of its own. People who grow up in disrupted communities are more likely to lead disrupted lives as adults, magnifying disorder from one generation to the next.
  • Second, it’s not true that people in disorganized neighborhoods have bad values. Their goals are not different from everybody else’s. It’s that they lack the social capital to enact those values. Third, while individuals are to be held responsible for their behavior, social context is more powerful than we thought. If any of us grew up in a neighborhood where a third of the men dropped out of school, we’d be much worse off, too.
  • disruption breeds disruption
  • children who can’t form secure attachments by 18 months face a much worse set of chances for the rest of their lives because they find it harder to build stable relationships.
  • Duncan H on 14 Feb 12
     
    What do you think?
Adam Clark

Do People Only Use 10% of Their Brains? | Mental Floss - 1 views

mentalfloss.com/...eople-only-use-10-their-brains

shared by Adam Clark on 11 Jul 14 - No Cached
  • Adam Clark on 11 Jul 14
     
    "A 2013 poll surveying over 2000 Americans found that 65 percent thought that this statement is true. And yet, the simple and unequivocal answer is: No. Despite a myth so prevalent that it is easily accepted as a pivotal plot point in movies or a motivational tactic or even justification for psychic claims, everyone uses 100 percent of their brain. There are a number of logical refutations of this myth-why would big brains evolve if they're nothing but dead weight?-but outright proving its fallacy is relatively easy with modern technology. PET and fMRI scans show that even when we're sleeping, our entire brain is active on some level."
nolan_delaney

3 ways to use the placebo effect to have a better day - CNN.com - 0 views

www.cnn.com/...index.html

placebo knowledge

shared by nolan_delaney on 20 Nov 14 - No Cached
    • nolan_delaney
      nolan_delaney on 20 Nov 14
       
      This relates to TOK because of how subjective our minds are to trickery
  • 0 survey of more than 400 docs found that a whopping 56% said they'd actually prescribed placebos to their patients
  • those who were told they got quality sleep performed better than those who were told they slept badly.
  • ...2 more annotations...
  • Placebos seem to work in large part "because they are given by authority figures,
    • nolan_delaney
      nolan_delaney on 20 Nov 14
       
      the part about authority figures relates to one of the fallacieswe discussed
  • nolan_delaney on 20 Nov 14
     
    Placebo affect- our minds subjective to trickery, authority figure fallacy 
sissij

Want to Get From A to B Safer? The Color of Your Car Matters | Big Think - 2 views

bigthink.com/...w-taxis-may-be-safer-than-blue

brain science research education

shared by sissij on 16 Mar 17 - No Cached
  • If you’ve taken to the United States streets anytime lately, you may have noticed that most public school buses are a very particular shade of yellow. That shade is called National School Bus Glossy Yellow in Canada and the US, and it was specially designed by Dr. Frank Cyr.
  • Yellow is easy to see in the dim lights of early morning or late evening, and because it's seen across both the green and red cones in the eye, it pops in our vision faster than other colors.
  • What’s more, while the majority of those who are color blind have trouble distinguishing red from green, they can still see yellow just fine.
  • ...4 more annotations...
  • It makes sense that yellow taxi cabs are safer than the blue ones.
  • Furthermore, the drivers tend to drive at similar speeds, so the color of the cabs isn’t attracting certain driver personalities. It is mostly linked to the color of the cab.
  • The long-standing association of yellow being the color of cabs means many people purchase cars that are specifically not yellow, because of the connection, but they will purchase blue cars. People are more careful around the yellow vehicle for the same reason they are careful around the school bus: they know what the color means.
  • Of course, this is all a short-term worry: we won't be at the mercy human error for much longer.
  • sissij on 16 Mar 17
     
    I think this is very interesting that even the color of a car can be associated with the accident rate of the taxi. The yellow color on the taxi make use of the pattern recognition in human mind as people tends to make connection between yellow and caution. I really like this idea because it shows that sometimes the fallacies in our logic can benefit us in the modern society. It is not totally useless. --Sissi (3/15/2017)
sissij

How Inoculation Can Help Prevent Pseudoscience | Big Think - 2 views

bigthink.com/...can-help-prevent-pseudoscience

inoculation psychology science research

shared by sissij on 25 May 17 - No Cached
  • It is easier to fool a person than it is to convince a person that they’ve been fooled. This is one of the great curses of humanity.
  • Given the incredible amount of information we process each day, it is difficult for any of us to critically analyze all of it.
  • The state of Minnesota is battling a measles outbreak caused by anti-vaccination propaganda. And Discussion over the effects of misinformation on recent elections in Austria, Germany, and the United States is still ongoing.
  • ...3 more annotations...
  • A recent set of experiments shows us that there is a way to help reduce the effects of misinformation on people: the authors amusingly call it the “inoculation.”
  • which even then were heavily influenced by their pre-existing worldviews.
  • teaching about misconceptions leads to greater learning overall then just telling somebody the truth.
  • sissij on 25 May 17
     
    Fake news and alternative facts are things that mess up our perception a lot. As we learned in TOK, there are a lot of fallacies in human reasoning. People tend to stick with their pre-existing worldview or ideas. I found it very interesting that people reduce the effect of misinformation by having an "inoculation". I think our TOK class is like the "inoculation" in a way that it asks us question and challenge us with the idea that everything might not seem as definite or absolute as it seems. TOK class can definitely help us to be immune of the fake news. --Sissi (5/25/2017)
sissij

Books are getting shorter; here's why - 0 views

www.consumeraffairs.com/...-shorter-heres-why-042613.html

social media bias technology

shared by sissij on 27 Oct 17 - No Cached
  • "A leading brain scientist in England points out that texting actually decreases the ability to think in complex ways because it eliminates complexity in sentence structure. Put it all together and it seems that no one has patience to sit quietly and read a book, as we might have a generation or even ten years ago."
  • "People are publishing books that are radically shorter than in the past," he says.
  • But books aren't just getting shorter, says Levin. What the reader wants from the author is changing too.
  • ...4 more annotations...
  • "But it's also a little bit of intellectual laziness," he adds. "That's what happens in an era when people are famous for being famous instead of famous for having accomplished something distinctive. If you and the media say you're special, you probably are."
  • "It's a paradox," he says. "We distrust authority if it's in the form of a major institution, like government, business or Wall Street. But if an individual claims authority in a given field, we assume the person must be telling the truth about his or her credentials. It's the natural trust we extend others -- we typically assume that people are who they say they are."
  • He says readers no longer want an author to prove his or her assertions. They just want to know the author is giving legitimate answers to their questions.
  • With a printed book people feel more committed to reading the entire thing, but with a digital book not so much, which is another reason a lot of today's books are shorter.
  • sissij on 27 Oct 17
     
    Interesting analysis on how social media affect human behavior. Intellectual laziness and our desire for simplicity leads us in the path of logical fallacies.
Javier E

The Facebook Fallacy: Privacy Is Up to You - The New York Times - 0 views

www.nytimes.com/...facebook-privacy.html

facebook privacy disclosure psychology rational choice social media brain science

shared by Javier E on 25 Apr 18 - No Cached
  • As Facebook’s co-founder and chief executive parried questions from members of Congress about how the social network would protect its users’ privacy, he returned time and again to what probably sounded like an unimpeachable proposition.
  • By providing its users with greater and more transparent controls over the personal data they share and how it is used for targeted advertising, he insisted, Facebook could empower them to make their own call and decide how much privacy they were willing to put on the block.
  • providing a greater sense of control over their personal data won’t make Facebook users more cautious. It will instead encourage them to share more.
  • ...21 more annotations...
  • “Disingenuous is the adjective I had in my mind,”
  • “Fifteen years ago it would have been legitimate to propose this argument,” he added. “But it is no longer legitimate to ignore the behavioral problems and propose simply more transparency and controls.”
  • Professor Acquisti and two colleagues, Laura Brandimarte and the behavioral economist George Loewenstein, published research on this behavior nearly six years ago. “Providing users of modern information-sharing technologies with more granular privacy controls may lead them to share more sensitive information with larger, and possibly riskier, audiences,” they concluded.
  • the critical question is whether, given the tools, we can be trusted to manage the experience. The increasing body of research into how we behave online suggests not.
  • “Privacy control settings give people more rope to hang themselves,” Professor Loewenstein told me. “Facebook has figured this out, so they give you incredibly granular controls.”
  • This paradox is hardly the only psychological quirk for the social network to exploit. Consider default settings. Tons of research in behavioral economics has found that people tend to stick to the default setting of whatever is offered to them, even when they could change it easily.
  • “Facebook is acutely aware of this,” Professor Loewenstein told me. In 2005, its default settings shared most profile fields with, at most, friends of friends. Nothing was shared by default with the full internet.
  • By 2010, however, likes, name, gender, picture and a lot of other things were shared with everybody online. “Facebook changed the defaults because it appreciated their power,” Professor Loewenstein added.
  • The phenomenon even has a name: the “control paradox.”
  • people who profess concern about privacy will provide the emails of their friends in exchange for some pizza.
  • They also found that providing consumers reassuring though irrelevant information about their ability to protect their privacy will make them less likely to avoid surveillance.
  • Another experiment revealed that people are more willing to come clean about their engagement in illicit or questionable behavior when they believe others have done so, too
  • Those in the industry often argue that people don’t really care about their privacy — that they may seem concerned when they answer surveys, but still routinely accept cookies and consent to have their data harvested in exchange for cool online experiences
  • Professor Acquisti thinks this is a fallacy. The cognitive hurdles to manage our privacy online are simply too steep.
  • While we are good at handling our privacy in the offline world, lowering our voices or closing the curtains as the occasion may warrant, there are no cues online to alert us to a potential privacy invasion
  • Even if we were to know precisely what information companies like Facebook have about us and how it will be used, which we don’t, it would be hard for us to assess potential harms
  • Members of Congress have mostly let market forces prevail online, unfettered by government meddling. Privacy protection in the internet economy has relied on the belief that consumers will make rational choices
  • Europe’s stringent new privacy protection law, which Facebook has promised to apply in the United States, may do better than the American system of disclosure and consen
  • the European system also relies mostly on faith that consumers will make rational choices.
  • The more that psychologists and behavioral economists study psychological biases and quirks, the clearer it seems that rational choices alone won’t work. “I don’t think any kind of disclosure or opt in or opt out is going to protect us from our worst instincts,”
  • What to do? Professor Acquisti suggests flipping the burden of proof. The case for privacy regulation rests on consumers’ proving that data collection is harmful. Why not ask the big online platforms like Facebook to prove they can’t work without it? If reducing data collection imposes a cost, we could figure out who bears it — whether consumers, advertisers or Facebook’s bottom line.
sissij

Gloria Steinem: Women Have 'Chick Flicks.' What About Men? - The New York Times - 0 views

www.nytimes.com/...ick-flicks-what-about-men.html

new york times bias language social media

shared by sissij on 05 Mar 17 - No Cached
  • As the flight attendant read the choices aloud, a young man across the aisle said, “I don’t watch chick flicks!”
  • I wasn’t challenging his preference, but I did question the logic of his term.
  • especially if it had been written by women.
  • ...4 more annotations...
  • Think about it: If “Anna Karenina" had been by Leah Tolstoy, or “The Scarlet Letter” by Nancy Hawthorne or “A Doll’s House” by Henrietta Ibsen — if “The Invisible Man” had been “The Invisible Woman” — would they have been hailed as classics?
  • Indeed, as long as men are taken seriously when they write about the female half of the world — and women are not taken seriously when writing about ourselves, much less about men and public affairs
  • His “chick flick” label might help him avoid certain movies, but shouldn’t he have a label to guide him toward movies he actually liked?
  • Bias is, as always, unfair to everyone.
  • sissij on 05 Mar 17
     
    I think this is gender stereotyping. People tend to make the assumption that women are more limited than men because they appear so emotional and irrational. However, in brain science, there is no real difference between male and female. The logic fallacies and flaws in reasoning stay true for everybody, not a specific gender. We also tends to label things to simplify. However, there are always exceptions to labels, as we learned in science. Labeling may filter out some really good stuff just based on our imprecise impression. -Sissi (3/4/2017)
sissij

How Behavioral Economics Can Produce Better Health Care - The New York Times - 0 views

www.nytimes.com/...care-behavioral-economics.html

new york times psychology research brain science

shared by sissij on 13 Apr 17 - No Cached
  • I’ll sometimes prescribe a particular brand of medication not because it has proved to be better, but because it happens to be the default option in my hospital’s electronic ordering system.
  • if a poster outside your room prompts me to think of your health instead of mine.
  • I’ll more readily change my practice if I’m shown data that my colleagues do something differently than if I’m shown data that a treatment does or doesn’t work.
  • ...5 more annotations...
  • These confessions can be explained by the field of behavioral economics, which holds that human decision-making departs frequently, significantly and predictably from what would be expected if we acted in purely “rational” ways.
  • Rather, our behavior is powerfully influenced by our emotions, identity and environment, as well as by how options are presented to us.
  • (organ donation rates are over 90 percent in countries where citizens need to override a default and opt out of donation compared with 4 to 27 percent where they much choose to opt in)
  • Employees were randomly assigned to one of three groups. The first was “usual care,” in which they received educational materials and free smoking cessation aids. The second was a reward program: Employees could receive up to $800 over six months if they quit. The third was a deposit program, in which smokers initially forked over $150 of their money, but if they quit, they got their deposit back along with a $650 bonus.
  • Those in the lottery group were eligible for a daily lottery prize with frequent small payouts and occasional large rewards — but only if they clocked in at or below their weight loss goal.
  • sissij on 13 Apr 17
     
    As we learned in TOK, people tend to follow the default. I think there is a phenomenon like inertia in human social behavior. Once we make up our mind doing something, we are very unlikely to make a change or make a correction. This has a subconscious influence on people so people can't notice it unless they are trained to avoid their logical fallacy. I found this a really good example of policy making can manipulate people's action and thoughts. --Sissi (4/13/2017)
katherineharron

How to be a human lie detector of fake news - CNN - 0 views

www.cnn.com/...index.html

shared by katherineharron on 25 Oct 19 - No Cached
  • Fake news existed long before the internet. In an essay on political lying in the early 18th century, the writer Jonathan Swift noted that "Falsehood flies and the truth comes limping after it." You have to hire a train to pull the truth, explained English pastor Charles Spurgeon in the 19th century, while a lie is "light as a feather ... a breath will carry it."
  • MIT researchers recently studied more than 10 years' worth of data on the most shared stories on Facebook. Their study covered conspiracy theories about the Boston bombings, misleading reports on natural disasters, unfounded business rumors and incorrect scientific claims. There is an inundation of false medical advice online, for example, that encourages people to avoid life-saving treatments such as vaccines and promotes unproven therapies. (Gwyneth Paltrow's Goop is just one example.)
  • The psychological research does, however, offer us a silver lining to this storm cloud, with various experiments demonstrating that people can learn to be better lie detectors with a little training in critical thinking.
  • ...6 more annotations...
  • If you would like to improve your own lie detection, a good first step is to learn the common logical fallacies -- red herrings, appeals to ignorance, straw men and "ad populum" appeals to the bandwagon -- that purveyors of misinformation may use to create the illusion of truth.
  • These efforts are often called "inoculations," since they use a real-life example in one domain to teach people about the strategies used to spread lies and therefore equipping people to spot them more easily. Educating people about the tobacco industry's attempts to question the medical consensus on smoking, for example, led people to be more skeptical of articles denying climate change, according to one study.
  • Another project aimed to inoculate students at North Carolina State University in Raleigh, involved a course on misinformation throughout history. The class was taught about everything from the myth that aliens somehow built the Egyptian pyramids to the theories that NASA's moon landings were faked. Along the way, the students had to identify the erroneous logic that helped create the arguments, and the motivations that may lead some people to spread those ideas.
  • You could also try basic strategies such as cross-checking different outlets and finding the original source of a claim. You might also look at independent fact-checking websites used in the MIT study such as Snopes, PolitiFact and TruthOrFiction.com.
  • The psychological literature offers us one good strategy against bias, called the "consider the opposite" method. This involves asking yourself whether you would have been so credulous of a claim if its opinions had differed from your own. And if not, what kind of additional scrutiny might you have applied? This should help you to identify the weaknesses in your own thinking.
  • Falsehoods may fly, but with this lie detection kit, you can better ensure your actions and beliefs remain grounded in the truth.
manhefnawi

Three Balls of Wool: An Illustrated Celebration of Nonconformity and the Courage to Rem... - 0 views

www.brainpickings.org/...three-balls-of-wool

Fallacy of the Fantasy Human Nature Utopias

shared by manhefnawi on 14 Jun 18 - No Cached
  • It may be an elemental property of human nature to fantasize about utopias — a fantasy all the more alluring the more dystopian one’s actual society is. But the inescapable fallacy of the fantasy is that while a utopia promises universal flourishing for everyone, not everyone has the same criteria for flourishing. Homogeneity, as Zadie Smith observed in her superb essay on optimism and despair, is no guarantor of a just and equitable society.
jaxredd10

What Is Cognitive Bias? - 0 views

www.verywellmind.com/at-is-a-cognitive-bias-2794963

shared by jaxredd10 on 28 Mar 21 - No Cached
  • Because of this, subtle biases can creep in and influence the way you see and think about the world. The concept of cognitive bias was first introduced by researchers Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman in 1972. Since then, researchers have described a number of different types of biases that affect decision-making in a wide range of areas including social behavior, cognition, behavioral economics, education, management, healthcare, business, and finance.
  • People sometimes confuse cognitive biases with logical fallacies, but the two are not the same. A logical fallacy stems from an error in a logical argument, while a cognitive bias is rooted in thought processing errors often arising from problems with memory, attention, attribution, and other mental mistakes.
peri20042023

By The Numbers: Who's Refusing Covid Vaccinations-And Why - 0 views

www.forbes.com/...ing-covid-vaccinations-and-why

COVID VACCINE: adults research bias education social media

shared by peri20042023 on 27 Oct 21 - No Cached
  • peri20042023 on 27 Oct 21
     
    This article details what percentage of adults are refusing to get the COVID vaccine. I thought this was interesting and pertained to the lesson we recently had about logical fallacies and blindly obeying/disobeying authority.
‹ Previous 21 - 40 of 70 Next › Last »
Showing 20▼ items per page