Talk:False-consensus effect

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Philosophy (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Psychology (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Why is "List of famous Minnesotans" under "Overconfidence effect" in the "See Also" section?


I have heard both pro-life activists and pro-choice activists refer to their side as the "silent majority". This seems like a perfect example of the false consensus effect, as obviously both sides cannot be correct. I have no sources for either side referring to themself as such, so I'm hesitant to add this information to the article, but I want to at least put it out there in case other people know of examples that could be used as sources. --Icarus 05:31, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

There was a research I know of in the beginning of the eighties in the Netherlands on nuclear power. First, people had to indicate if they were in favor, or against, nuclear energy, and in what amount. After that, they had to estimate the percentage of dutch people and the percentage of members of parliament who were in favor of nuclear energy. People against nuclear energy judged the amount of public support less then people in favour of nuclear energy. The number of MP's was estimated in a smaller range, and the researches guessed that this was because MP's express their opinon in the media, and therefore people had a more accurate idea of the postitions (Source Van der Linden, J., Ester, P., & Van der Pligt, J. (198X). Kernenergie en publieke opinie: een onderzoek naar achtergronden van houdingen ten aanzien van kernenergie en de invloed hierop van het wonen bij een kerncentrale. Amsterdam: Vrije Universiteit. Instituut voor milieuvraagstukken.)

But I'm wondering, isnt this an issue of the end seventi4es, early eighties, can't we fund more recent applications? --137.120.3.220 12:43, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

EIGEN MENING

sterk voor voor neutraal tegen sterk tegen
geschatte percentage van de Nederlandse bevolking dat vóór uitbreiding van het aantal kerncentrales is. 58% 48% 41% 34% 29%
geschatte percentage van de Tweede Kamerleden dat vóór uitbreiding van het aantal kerncentrales is. 56% 50% 46% 46% 43%

pizza[edit]

what is that sentence doing in there about pizza? even if it does make sense it's written horribly --98.169.245.233 (talk) 00:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Conclusion[edit]

Really great to see this article being expanded and developed, using quality academic sources. One change I'd like to see is a removal of the "Conclusion" section. Essays have conclusions, but encyclopedia articles don't. An encyclopedia article should leave the reader to draw their own conclusions from a balanced presentation of the facts. MartinPoulter (talk)

Yes, an interesting (and well-presented) article, but as MartinPoulter says, the "conclusion" section looks out of place. I'd suggest that the "applications" and "uncertainties" sections are perhaps a little unencyclopaedic too. Remember, the article is intended to tell the general reader what 'false consensus effect' is, according to the sources, not to assess it's validity according to Wikipedia - that isn't our job. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:41, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Applications[edit]

The "Applications" section has a lot of original research/essay speculation. Anyone know of some more good peer-reviewd applications of this theory? David Delony (talk) 18:14, 23 September 2011 (UTC)