Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
With a universal proclivity, it would be possible to document the bias across cultures and "across different demographic groups, including among men varying in age, ethnicity, and education level" within cultures [13] and in females based on their job status, health, levels of education and income equality. [5]
[6] Explanations include information-processing rules (i.e., mental shortcuts), called heuristics, that the brain uses to produce decisions or judgments. Biases have a variety of forms and appear as cognitive ("cold") bias, such as mental noise, [5] or motivational ("hot") bias, such as when beliefs are distorted by wishful thinking. Both ...
In some academic disciplines, the study of bias is very popular. For instance, bias is a wide spread and well studied phenomenon because most decisions that concern the minds and hearts of entrepreneurs are computationally intractable. [12] Cognitive biases can create other issues that arise in everyday life.
Naturalistic fallacy fallacy is a type of argument from fallacy. Straw man fallacy – refuting an argument different from the one actually under discussion, while not recognizing or acknowledging the distinction. [110] Texas sharpshooter fallacy – improperly asserting a cause to explain a cluster of data. [111]
Disqualifying the positive may be the most common fallacy in the cognitive distortion range; it is often analyzed with "always being right", a type of distortion where a person is in an all-or-nothing self-judgment. People in this situation show signs of depression. Examples include: "I will never be as good as Jane"
Jumping to conclusions (officially the jumping conclusion bias, often abbreviated as JTC, and also referred to as the inference-observation confusion [1]) is a psychological term referring to a communication obstacle where one "judge[s] or decide[s] something without having all the facts; to reach unwarranted conclusions".
When referring to a generalization made from a single example, the terms fallacy of the lonely fact, [8] or the fallacy of proof by example, might be used. [9] When evidence is intentionally excluded to bias the result, the fallacy of exclusion—a form of selection bias—is said to be involved. [10]
In another example of near-total neglect of probability, Rottenstreich and Hsee (2001) found that the typical subject was willing to pay $10 to avoid a 99% chance of a painful electric shock, and $7 to avoid a 1% chance of the same shock. They suggest that probability is more likely to be neglected when the outcomes are emotion-arousing.