Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The fallacy is characterized by a lack of a specific hypothesis prior to the gathering of data, or the formulation of a hypothesis only after data have already been gathered and examined. [5] Thus, it typically does not apply if one had an ex ante, or prior, expectation of the particular relationship in question before examining the data. For ...
Overconfidence effect, a tendency to have excessive confidence in one's own answers to questions. For example, for certain types of questions, answers that people rate as "99% certain" turn out to be wrong 40% of the time. [5] [43] [44] [45] Planning fallacy, the tendency for people to underestimate the time it will take them to complete a ...
Several theories predict the fundamental attribution error, and thus both compete to explain it, and can be falsified if it does not occur. Some examples include: Just-world fallacy. The belief that people get what they deserve and deserve what they get, the concept of which was first theorized by Melvin J. Lerner in 1977. [11]
Research suggests that use or neglect of base rates can be influenced by how the problem is presented, which reminds us that the representativeness heuristic is not a "general, all purpose heuristic", but may have many contributing factors. [16] Base rates may be neglected more often when the information presented is not causal. [17]
An example of a language dependent fallacy is given as a debate as to who in humanity are learners: the wise or the ignorant. [18]: 3 A language-independent fallacy is, for example: "Coriscus is different from Socrates." "Socrates is a man." "Therefore, Coriscus is different from a man." [18]: 4
Double-barreled questions have been asked by professionals, resulting in notable skewed media reports and research pieces. For example, Harris Poll used double-barreled questions in the 1980s, investigating the US public opinion on Libya–United States relations , and American attitudes toward Mikhail Gorbachev .
Hasty generalization is the fallacy of examining just one or very few examples or studying a single case and generalizing that to be representative of the whole class of objects or phenomena. The opposite, slothful induction , is the fallacy of denying the logical conclusion of an inductive argument, dismissing an effect as "just a coincidence ...
For example, if there is a test for a disease which has an accuracy of 90%, people may think it's a 90% they have the disease even though the disease only affects 1 in 500 people. [ 46 ] Common sense heuristic: Used frequently by individuals when the potential outcomes of a decision appear obvious.